This is just a conversation had on a friend’s fb status between myself and friends of hers. I’ll just post from the time that I need to in order for readers to understand my responses. I’ve also painted over the other folk’s last names and user photos.
seriously, i <3 julian, but i couldn’t resist sticking my nose in and calling out crap as I saw it
in reference to julian posting a pearl cleage essay on violence, rape, and sex.
warning: i go into personal details of my sex life. you have been warned 
^run awaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy time^
Hi Julian, I second Jennifer’s words, and would add, that personally, numbers 3, 7, and 8, combined with her heterosexist, coitus-centred, and frankly male supremacist definition of sex, is what had me freaking pissed off at her. (eg “Sex is a powerful and basic drive meant to insure the survival of the species.” HA! Men being raised from babyhood by other men to think that does not make it so)
Her proscriptions would proclude me from being sexual at all with males, because she appears to define sex as piv intercourse, and although I’ve had awful to wonderful noncoital experiences of sex with males, I’ve never, nor do I ever want to have piv sex. I’ve flirted, engaged in sexually charged conversations, read books like the Hite Report (which, by the way is excellent in debunking the “sex drive” myths that Cleage and many others engage in) as well as sexually graphic novels aloud together, “made out,” engaged in various types of frattage, mutual masturbation, oral sex, etc with males before or during which I’ve stated my declarative no to piv sex. I’ve even had discussions about my brand of radical feminism, as well as the pain that accompanies being etered with “large things” in general for me, with several of them. She is saying that since I don’t want piv sex, I shouldn’t even be sexual with them, and while I would agree with about that about some of them in retrospect, about 60% of them? aww, hells, nah, I wouldn’t change it.
My two cents.
was diddling around today, and was challenged on calling myself queer by someone on fb because I’m anti-bdsm (to simplify, more complex than that, but lean way more towards anti than pro). And I found THIS!, from the 5th People’s Global Action Conference in Greece, 2008. edit: I found out that a fb friend of mine translated it and it was based in large part on a Swedish article by Madde Elgemyr called Lesbianism as a feminist strategy.
Whole article follows below, in original formatting:
Gender and love – Feminism – Patriarchy – Men hating women – Heterosexuality – Homosocial / Heterorelational – Sexliberalism – Women hating men – Separatism – Women’s solidarity – Solidarity with women: Power of definition / Partiality
GENDER AND LOVE ::: Gender is a role assigned to us at birth. “Is it a boy or a girl?” Female if you have a cunt, and male if you have a penis. The ones with something other or in between (intersexed) are forced into either category, sometimes with mutilation of their genitals in order to have a body fitting with the role given to them. —- Most oppression work in the same way. Creating two different categories, and then assigning certain traits to one group who are valued higher than the traits who are supposed to be representative of the individuals belonging to the other group. In this case “male” values higher than “female”. —- Male: Control, reason, culture, adult, intellectual, leader —- Female: Sexual, emotional, nature, child, body, being lead —- These same categories go for: white / non-white. Upper class / working class. Adult / child. Humans / other animals. —- Love plays an important part in maintaining these structures. It’s there as a creating force, and also has the potential of being exploited. Love is the basics in all social relations. We all breathe the same air. We wake up to the same sun. Gaze at the same moon. We all have a deep need to feel love. All relations we have to all living things are based on love – seeing; listening; caring for – and how much we give and receive of it. —– We are socialized into seeing certain categories as the norm (for instance: white, male) and certain as “other”, and relate to each other according to what position we have in relation to ethnicity, age, able-bodiedness etc. We make differences in how much love we give and feel according to how we are positioned in this web of discriminatory labeling. It’s an oppressive system and we as individuals maintain and recreate it daily. Out of habit. And out of fear. It’s not accepted to break the rules. We know this from early on. We have been taught well through a system of punishment and reward. “Good boy!” “Bad girl!” “Boys don’t cry!” “Girls don’t wrestle!”
FEMINISM and PATRIARCHY – MEN HATING WOMEN ::: Every political movement must start by identifying their oppressor and adversary and the strategies used by their opponent in order to make strategies of their own. —- Apart from the cruel ways of separating children into boys and girls, and breaking boys into men. Patriarchy is a system mainly oppressing women. And if women is the oppressed group there’s only one group left doing the oppressing: men. In a lot of languages the violence that women face by men is not called ‘men’s violence against women’, but usually the doer is left out and it’s called: ‘violence against women’. Which is a way of obscuring the power relations, that should by now be obvious to us all. —- A mainstream opinion is that men and women are equally oppressed in this system. And it’s also very common to hear that “men are more oppressed than women” because they can’t cry or something such. It’s also fairly often said that “men are oppressed by women”. Looking at it through a historical lens, very few could argue that men as a group have been facing the same prejudice and bias as women as a group. —- Patriarchy means the systematic power men have over women. Women and men constitute two groups that are at a constant conflict. This conflict is present in all aspects of society. Men as a group and individuals oppress women as a group and individuals, by for instance exerting an enormous amount of sexualized violence on women, most women are at some point in their lives exposed to some form of sexualized violence by a man known to them, which means that most men exert some form of oppression towards one or more women close to them (since a person can only have close relations with a limited amount of individuals.) —- This means that men have power over women in a hierarchy, not only that men and women have a different amount of power and are “unequal” in “the system”. Men’s power lies in every single relation between men and women, not primarily in the state or by owning the means of production. It’s important to have a perspective that sees both the structure at large and at the same time see the individuals and actors creating it – there is no male power without the men exercising it; men’s violence against women is also not an isolated phenomenon but a part of the structural violence that men as a group use against women as a group. —- Very often when speaking of the realities of this oppression, “exceptions” and the “good men” are mentioned, making a theoretical difference between individual / group / system. Creating a difference between men as individuals and the acts and institutions of men, does not make a lot of sense. —- Men as a group hate women, and express this hatred through rape, murder, sexual harassment, and other sexualized behaviors. A lot of women do not experience these behaviors as expressions of hatred, since men’s violence against women have been so culturally mystified that we have been fooled into believing these are expressions of guilt free insanity, misunderstandings, natural sex drive or even: love. —- Even for feminists, aware of the power relations, it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the men around her are “different” an “exception to the rule”. And thereby seeing the men in her surrounding as separate from men as a social group. And most women living / associating with men do the same. This leads to most men having some woman convinced he’s an atypical man, different from the rest, even if this is mathematically impossible (a majority can not be atypical of itself). This is a situation that men benefit from and feminists and women in general are disadvantaged by. —- It is not only that men treat women badly, although often they do, but that it is their choice whether or not to do so. All men have power over all women: over all women as a group and specifically over a few that they are in close relation to. Each man can then choose to exercise this power through oppression, or he may choose not to, but since men are not isolated from the patriarchal society at large they have always this socially supported power and can always choose to use it, at which point it’s then up to the woman in question to stop him. —- Any feminism not having the strategy of constantly criticizing men as a group and individuals, and holding them accountable to the women hating acts they perform on a daily basis, recreating patriarchy. Any feminism not speaking of men and their actions being the first most reason to keeping this system going. Any feminism not doing that is not really challenging status quo. —- The relation between men and women is a war, a war done by men on women. A war that’s currently not meeting any resistance to speak of. —- Often when speaking of men as responsible for the violence and harm done to women – identifying a certain political group in a determined and general manner, in this case “men” and “women” – this is seen as “essentializing” this group. Radical feminists would not agree on using this word, since we see essentialism as some form of biological reductionism, where something is described by its nature to be unchangeable and unaffected by political means. —- When feminism loses its analysis of men as responsible for men’s oppression of women but instead start speaking of liberating both women and men from “patriarchy” with no visible actors, a male power without accountable men, it also loses its potential to create a radical change. —- Radical feminism could be said to be the absolute opposite of postmodernism. Radical feminism’s strategy is for women to bond together in solidarity and organize against men as a social group. —- The postmodern way to fight patriarchy is to simply stop talking of “men” and “women” and by deconstructing these two categories in that way somehow get rid of the problem. —- As if these categories are completely detached from individuals and the social groups in the context defined by power. No group of people is seen as responsible for maintaining the social structure and no material problems are discussed. The deconstruction of men and women is supposed to be done without challenging men’s power over women in society, without stopping men as a group and individuals from harming women. —- Which is a very unrealistic way of getting anywhere. As if I as a white person could just stop calling myself “white” and in that way there would be no more racism. Or by not identifying as a “woman” I could then escape oppression. Not a very potent strategy. —- We have to go deeper than that. Look at structures and the individuals maintaining it. As in: Who’s on top and who’s on the bottom.
HETEROSEXUALITY ::: The turn on in heterosexuality is the differences between the (female and male) sexes, a difference based on power, a hierarchy. An erotization of power and submission. —- Women’s heterosexuality benefit men’s power over women since women are bound emotionally, socially and economically to men and isolated from other women in heterosexual couple- and polyamorous relations. —- In a society where men (as a group and individuals) continuously batter, rape and murder women, and in particular women who live in intimate love relations with them. The type of love bonding women to men in this way is problematic. (Even though it’s not only love keeping the women in these relations but most often a real fear of intensified violence if they’d try to break free.) —- Even if not all women are exposed to violence, we are all continuously aware of its existence and affected by it. In this way all acts of violence against women are beneficial to all men and strengthen their power over all women. —- Heterosexual love can in many ways be compared with the kind of love that a hostage can develop for their oppressors, as a survival strategy, creating strong emotional bonds of loyalty, great sensitivity to the needs of the oppressor through interpretation of nuances in words, tone of voice and body language, and finally love. This psychological condition is especially common when captivity is enduring for a longer time, and the hostages are kept isolated from each other and in close contact with the men who keep them hostage. Very much like the conditions women are under in the isolated family units where most of the male violence against women are practiced. Women live isolated from each other but close to husbands, boyfriends, fathers etc who have the potential of harming them (all men have power over women, regardless of whether they chose to exercise that power or not.) —- Victims of this type of violence react on the oppression in a string of seemingly illogical ways – they see themselves from the perspective of the batterer, see him as the victim and themselves as worthless, they put their hopes to being spared if they themselves are just loving and caring and obedient enough, and they experience this as loving the batterer. This is a pattern that can be transferred from an individual level to a societal level and explain women’s way of relating to men as a group and as individuals, given that women as a group in this society live under the constant threat of male violence (strangers and intimates) throughout our lives. —- Women’s love as defined above is a patriarchal strategy to keep women tied to men and support men’s power over women.
HOMOSOCIAL / HETERORELATIONAL ::: Heterorelational is a wider concept than heterosexuality. Heterorelations are all the emotional, economical, social and political relations that exist between men and women on men’s terms. Women living with men are not primarily heterosexual in the sense that they are attracted to men, but are rather living heterorelationally, which means that their lives and self-definition is related to relations with men – being a girlfriend, mother, attractive woman, and so on. —- The heterorelational ideology permeates the society to the extent that most of us don’t reflect over this, it stipulates that women only have a value in relation to men, that only those relations and situations where a man is in the picture are interesting, that relations between women are unimportant and fundamentally lacking something without men. —- For instance it’s not uncommon for a group of women sitting at a café or bar to be approached by a man asking if they are there “alone”. Women together are in a heterorelational way of thinking seen as incomplete without a man present. —- Heterorelational ideology has also defined a large part of the discussion about the relation between the (female and male) sexes, by defining feminism as striving towards equality with men, instead of women’s independent autonomy and relations with each other. —- In the same way as women are related to men, also men put men first in their relations. Their way of relating to each other is called homosocial. In men’s homosocial way of relating to one another women are viewed as relative beings who exist not for ourselves, but only for the servicing, maintenance and comfort of men.
SEXLIBERALISM ::: Sexliberals by advocating S/M and the buying of sex eroticize and practice the exact same power hierarchies that men’s power over women is based on, and also advocate a reactionary emotional essentialism by not allowing any criticism of feelings and sexuality as a political and social phenomena. —- If a woman is turned on by rape fantasies or sell her body to johns, feminists have no right to ask on what political grounds – the feeling can’t be questioned, regardless of the social consequences for the woman herself or for women as a group. —- The feminist agenda of changing and turning our emotional lives over from the patriarchal indoctrination by consciousness raising is judged as moralistic and puritan. —- Sadomasochist-activists advocate erotization of several power hierarchies, amongst others: man – woman, nazi – jew, white – black, and see the practices of these power hierarchies as a sexual “game”. Some sexliberals also advocate sex with children. —- Heterorelations function perfectly well in lesbian, gay and queer sexual relations for instance by sadomasochist practices, or that the women in other aspects, apart form the sexual, live male centered lives. Especially S/M – a sexuality based on degradation and violence, for instance licking somebody’s shoes or whipping somebody – has to a great extent been normalized in the lesbian subculture. —- The question why somebody is turned on by violence and submission is taboo amongst sexliberals. The general attraction to self-violence, women’s internalized self-hatred expressed by for instance cutting herself with razorblades is seen as something entirely different. But as soon as destructive behavior is eroticized and sexualized it’s immediately beyond any political criticism. —- Sexual feelings are learned and can be unlearned. One way of fighting women’s erotization of men’s power is by getting together and critically and with a large dose of humor analyze sexual fantasies, see the political reasons behind them and in that way make it possible to deconstruct it through feminist consciousness.
WOMEN HATING MEN – SEPARATISM – WOMEN’S SOLIDARITY ::: In order to break with this oppression women need to speak out about their reality. This is what feminists very often do. And in doing so, breaking the silence, breaking with the loyalty to the oppressor we’re often told that we’re hating men. Hatred as well as a love is a political strategy. And considering the socialization of women into caring, self-sacrificing, heterorelational beings, I would see the anger of women and even hatred expressed to the ones committing the crimes against us, as a healthy first step towards liberation. Women have no responsibility whatsoever to care for the wellbeing of our oppressors. —- Women should instead show solidarity with other women. Every woman has a limited amount of time and energy, and waisting it on the ones in power, is time and energy taken from other women, and the women’s movement. —- It’s important to create deep relations – political and emotional – where women put women first. A love with varying degrees of intimacy. Many women (or most) have been exposed to sexualized violence and therefore crave spaces and relations where they don’t have anything to do with sexuality and can feel safe: in which case they’d rather not have their relations with women sexualized in the same way as the relations with men already are. For others this love and solidarity for women can be extended to a sexual love. —- About women doing political work with other women: Racism and class oppression are issues that concern different groups of men as much as women, and it is therefore more socially accepted for women to engage in these struggles. Issues and oppressions other than sexism and lesbophobia have attached to them the seductive aura of male approval. If women choose not to work with men but instead focus entirely on women, it’s not considered to be “real politics” but instead seen as a limitation and a narrow perspective. —- Separatism is a fundamental liberatory strategy of an oppressed group. It’s important to understand the difference between segregation as beneficial for the dominant group (as in apartheid) and separatism initiated by the oppressed as a means of self-defense. —- Oppression is based on the dominant group’s or individual’s access to its victims – physically, socially, psychologically, sexually etc. Separatism – denying access to the oppressor – is a way for the oppressed to claim autonomy. —- Separatism can be expressed through many different actions and ways of organizing – for instance political gatherings for women only and women’s studies courses. —- Consciousness raising groups, where women discuss their common experiences of oppression in a political context, and plan change and resistance is an important strategy since women’s experiences are not considered to be political but personal. It’s also a strengthening experience knowing you are not alone in your suffering. —- The personal is political is a feminist phrase opening up an analysis of many different areas that previously had been defined as non-political, for instance: love, house work, rape and sexual harassment. —- Women’s separatism is not only a strategy against men but just as much a strategy by and for women.
SOLIDARITY WITH WOMEN: POWER OF DEFINITION / PARTIALITY ::: Power is best seen from below. In order to break with the prevailing oppressive systems we need to identify with the groups we as individuals belong to. And recognize the privilege or oppression that comes with these different categories. And when belonging to a privileged group, understanding that with this privilege (most of the time) also comes complete ignorance of having this privilege. So instead of reacting in a defensive (supremacist) manner when a person tries to point out oppressive behavior: “Can’t you have any fun?” “That wasn’t meant to be sexist/racist/homophobic…you are too sensitive” “Let’s not overreact.” “Now you’re violating my boundaries when you jump all over me like that, just because I was a little…” Instead of going along with the system we can act differently and actively try to change these systems by using two concepts called Power of definition and Partiality. —- Power of definition: The affected person has the right to define what is to be considered as a violation of their boundaries. They have a right to define a situation as oppressive according to how they’ve experienced it. —- Partiality: The person who is regarded the affected person is the one who, considering structural power relations, is in the oppressed position and who, additionally, considers themselves an affected person. Partiality means positioning oneself with the affected person and supporting their power of definition. —- Revolution could be really easy. Just: Shut up and listen.
from Laurier’s chapter of JHR’s publication on immigration is on pages 8-9. The rest of the articles are definitely worth a read too 
While contraception does reduce the link between sexuality and reproduction, noncoital sex does far more to sever that link. My mind boggles at the equation of sexuality and reproduction that is perpetuated when feminists say contraception is what breaks the link between sex and reproduction.
an essay drawing comparisons between child sexual abuse and factory farming, from a woman who was abused by her brother. *trigger warning* (has five parts)
truly a wtf moment. oh, peta, fuck off.
the anti-olympic torch action in kw, with guelph action info in comments.
*Call for Submissions:
The lived experience(s) of mental health in feminist communities*
Call for submissions from people who identify with feminism and have
lived
experiences of a psychiatric diagnosis.
Our upcoming anthology, *Feminist*s Navigate Mental Health* (working
title),
will explore the complexities of navigating mental health and how a
feminist
identity may (or may not) shape those experiences. Submissions are
welcomed
in the form of personal short stories.
The submissions received will shape the outcome of the book. The
final
manuscript will be submitted to relevant Canadian independent
publishers.
We are looking for contributions that explore the relationship between
feminist identity and experiences, thoughts, and feelings related to
mental
health.
*
Possible themes may include (but are not limited to):*
* Coping – what works and what doesn*t
* Any positive aspects of your mental health that are commonly
considered
deficits
* Treatment preferences and past experiences
* Medication
* Personal/lived understandings of your diagnosis (acceptance or
rejection)
* Stigma/tension around mental health issues in the feminist
community
* Feminism and well-being/strength/
*Guidelines:*
* Remember to take care of yourself while writing about topics
that may
be distressing;
* Good writing skills are great, but not mandatory! We will work
with
you to edit your piece;
* Submissions should be saved in .doc or .rtf, size 12 font, Ariel
or
Times New Roman, and double spaced;
* 500 to 3000 words
* Include contact information and a brief biography;
* Only email submissions will be accepted;
* Submission deadline is June 1st, 2010.
Comments, concerns, questions and submissions should be directed to:
SCRAP PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION
REGULATIONS!
ENSURE STATUS FOR ALL!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/migrantworkers/
To:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney
Temporary Resident Policy and Programs Director Maia Welbourne
——————————
As community, women’s, immigrant rights, faith-based and trade union
organizations we strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Temporary
Foreign Worker Program that entrench a disposable workforce with few
rights. We call on the government to scrap these proposed amendments
immediately and ensure real protection and justice for migrant workers.
Under a smokescreen of protection for workers, the regulatory changes
would limit migrant workers’ time in Canada to four years and bar them
from re-entering Canada for the next six years. Workers could be denied
entry at the border if an immigration officer decides their job offer is
not genuine.
These changes do not strengthen protection for migrant workers. These
changes only make workers even more vulnerable and reinforce the
government’s efforts to build a disposable workforce through the Temporary
Foreign Worker Program (TFWP).
The government states it is responding to extensive consultations.
However, our organizations and countless workers have told Immigration
Minister Jason Kenney that, to address systemic violations of workers
rights in the TFWP, fundamental changes are needed, including ensuring
migrant workers have permanent status. Imposing limits on workers’ time in
Canada makes workers status even more precarious and is an unjust and
arbitrary provision.
Giving immigration officers arbitrary powers in denying workers admission
to Canada penalizes migrant workers rather than targeting recruiters and
employers who should be held accountable for the exploitation that workers
face.
The government proposes that abusive employers be banned from hiring
workers for 2 years and their names be made public. However, these changes
do nothing to address the reality that migrant workers who are tied to one
employer and who are denied full immigration status often cannot speak out
against the widespread violations in the TFWP without risking deportation.
This policy change is part of an ongoing trend of exclusion within the
Canadian immigration system where the government has created more
temporary programs and less access to citizenship rights. Today, people
from only 38 professions are able to immigrate to Canada under the Federal
Skilled Worker points system. Refugee acceptance rates have declined
sharply and there is talk of further dismantling the system. Deportations
have increased 50%.
The government’s press release states that these changes “strengthen the
protection of temporary foreign workers.” They do not.
Real protection means enforcing standards on employers and agencies hiring
migrant workers. Real protection means allowing migrant workers to bargain
collectively, with full coverage under labour legislation.
Real protection means access to citizenship benefits and responsibilities.
Real protection means permanent residence on arrival. Real protection
means regularization for all. Real protection means prohibiting fees
migrant workers are forced to pay to find work, a fair appeals process for
repatriations and an end to deportation. Real protection that Canada’s
immigration system has, as yet, failed to ensure.
We call on the government to scrap these proposed amendments and move to
ensure real protection and justice for migrant workers immediately.
================
Endorsed by (6 November, 2009): Agriculture Workers Alliance, Campaign
2000, Canadian Arab Federation, CAW Canada, Canadian Hispanic Congress,
The Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners Inc., Caregivers Action
Centre, Caregiver Connections Education and Support Organization, Center
for Philippine Concerns, Centre des Travailleurs et Travailleuses
Immigrants, Chinese Canadian National Council, Coalition for Change,
Council of Agencies Serving South Asians, CUPE National, CUPE Ontario,
CUPE Toronto District Council, CUPE, Law Union of Ontario, Local 3393,
Local 4308, Local 3907, Dignidad Migrante, Fuerza/Puwersa, Interim Place,
Good Jobs for All Coalition, Health for All, Immigrant Workers Centre -
Montreal, Justice for Migrant Workers, Migrante – Ontario, No One Is
Illegal – Toronto, No One Is Illegal – Montreal, Ontario Association of
Interval and Transition Houses, Ontario Federation of Labour, PINAY,
Portuguese National Congress, SEIU Local 2, Sistering – A Woman’s Place,
Social Planning Toronto, Solidarity Across Borders – Montreal, Somali
Canadian Diaspora Alliance, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, Student
Christian Movement of Canada, UFCW Canada, UFCW Canada, Local 175, Local
832, Local 1000a, Local 1118, Local 1400, Local 1518, UNITE-HERE, United
Steelworkers National Office, United Steelworkers Toronto Area Council,
Workers’ Action Centre
====================
Remember! The regulations take effect on December 9, 2009. Unless we stop
them!
WHAT YOU CAN DO
ENDORSE this statement! Email coalition4change.to@gmail.com if you are
part of an organization that would like to sign on.
SIGN THE PETITION.INVITE everyone you to know to sign this statement.
EMAIL your outrage to maia.welbourne@cic.gc.ca AND Minister@cic.gc.ca AND
coalition4change.to@gmail.com
STAY INVOLVED! Email nooneisillegal@riseup.net
From: Policy Action Research List/Liste politique action recherche
[mailto:PAR-L@LISTSERV.UNB.CA] On Behalf Of martin dufresne
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 11:00 AM
To: PAR-L@LISTSERV.UNB.CA
Subject: [PAR-L] Just what is going on at rabble.ca?
Yesterday, a woman posted on the feminism forum of the
http://rabble.ca/babble website a reminder of Canadian legislation in regard
to child abuse reporting.
She was responding to two accounts of 12-yr old girls being prostituted, one
of them from the age of 9, the other 10, and described by frequent poster
Susan Davis as a < sex worker >!
“Infosaturated” wrote :
Every single adult who knows this is happening to a child and doesn’t report
it shares the guilt for what is happening to her from that day forward.
http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/duty-to-report.html
In Canada, if someone knows of or suspects that a child is being abused,
that person has a legal obligation to report the known or suspected abuse.
Failure to report can result in charges being laid, as well as a fine of up
to $10,000….All of us must take responsibility when we suspect abuse is taking place,
not only from a legal standpoint, but from moral and ethical obligations as
well.
Do you find this appeal to our collective responsibility excessive?
Well, they were painted as a personal attack.
“Infosaturated” – a survivor of incest, rape, and prostitution – was
repeatedly insulted (“you suck”) and baited by Susan Davis, promoter of
decriminalized brothels in Canada, and then she, not Davis, was suspended
without explanation from the feminism forum by Rabble’s paid “moderator”
Michelle, who cut short the thread, making any response to her decision
impossible.
I suggest you read this incredible exchange for yourself (while it is still
on-line) at
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/feminism/un … ution-laws
I realize that some people are deeply committed to a full decriminalization
of brothels, pimps and johns, but is a sad day indeed on any feminist forum
when a survivor of prostitution and incest can be treated in this manner for
reminding us of our responsibility to try and protect children from the sex
industry.
Questions can be addressed to Rabble’s current owner:
Kim Elliot
rabble.ca
Suite 400, 215 Spadina Avenue
Toronto, ON
M5T 2C7
rabble.ca was launched in 2001 with the help of the following founding folk
and organizations:
The Atkinson Foundation
Doris Anderson
Margaret Atwood
Maxine Rosa Baines
Dr. Elaine Bernard
British Columbia Teachers’ Federation
Martha and George Butterfield
Canadian Auto Workers
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Duncan Cameron
Kim Cameron
Cecil Ross Foundation, Ontario
Centre for Media Alternatives – Quebec 2001 Centre for Social Justice
Chinese Canadian National Council Common Front Against the WTO Cool Women
Council of Canadians Ann Curry-Stevens Dr. Margrit Eichler Ruby & Edwardh
Doris & Al Jantzi David Langille Dr. Neil & Marilyn McLeod Barry McPeake
Rick Mercer Rona Moreau Dr. Henry Morgentaler Winnie Ng
PAR-L: Policy, Action, Research
Marion Pollack
Public Service Alliance of Canada
David Rapaport
Alvin & Glenna Rebick
Judy Rebick
Terra Rebick
Laurell Ritchie
Kikelola Roach
Wey Robinson
Mark & Tonya Surman
David Suzuki & Tara Cullis
Don Tapscott
and several anonymous donors
I sure hope that some of them share our concern.
Martin Dufresne
One, of many notable comments to the article:
“I’m very confused by this Hollywood place, where a man interrupting a 19-year-old at an awards show constitutes a reason to boycott him and receives universal scorn, and at the same time, a man who raped a 13-year-old child receives a petition in support of his release.”
And so are a lot of others, in reference to the petitition: http://jezebel.com/5370356/letters-from-hollywood-roman-polanskis-rape-of-child-no-big-thing?skyline=true&s=i
This piece of patriarchal scum anally, orally, and vaginally raped a 13 year old girl child who he had drugged to semi-consciousness, in spite of her noes, stops, faking asthma, and other attempts at stopping him. And Whoopi has the gall to defend it, nor is it the first time she has defended the sexual abuse of women and children.
I’ve got a few things on the go, all of which have contributed to me crying my wee heart out.
I’m watching the subtitled English Italian documentary Women Bodies.
I read a news article on a speech by our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, in which he states: “We also have no history of colonialism.” And shows he doesn’t give a shit about the “apology” for the Canadian government’s role in residential schools for indigenous children that he made a couple years ago. Also, did you know that Canada, Amerika, and New Zealand are the only nations who oppose the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? (Australia changed recently, issuing a statement of support; previously, they had voted against.)
I’m catching up on Julian Real’s blog, reading over September entries mostly, including entries on the late Andrea Dworkin, Robert Jensen calling on us to abandon masculinity as desirable or fixable, incestuous abuse by “Papa John” of his daughter (and Julian’s abuse at the hands of an adult when he was a preteen) and white hetero male privilege.
Julian’s blog is leading me to other blogs, such as A Lady Divine.
I’m also on a Blue October kick, listening to songs such as Razorblade (about a boy sexually abused by a priest and self harm. this live version adds a verse where he kills him when he grows up), Libby, I’m Listening (lovely love song, being there for someone in an abusive situation, fucked up individuals and all), Come In Closer (the lyrics evoke beautiful imagery, and it’s really compelling soundwise), Jump Rope (a song Justin wrote for his daughter when she asked why all his songs were sad), HRSA (stands for high risk of self abuse, about institutionalization), 2 AM Lovesick (not sure what it’s about, but love it), Chameleon Boy (opening oneself up to help, being vulnerable, dealing with addiction), Angel (wanting to help a rape survivor, not giving up), His Name Is Crazy (awesome musically) and Weight of the World (recovery). Oh, I love them, and could link songs to queendom come, but made myself stop 
And for good measure, here is Justin talking about Sexual Power-trip and Razorblade
Apologies for rarely updating lately. Things have been hectic, and my dad recently became seriously ill and passed away. But I have “abnormal” attitudes toward death, so have been handling it ok (in comparison to how people tend to deal with death, anyway).
Lyrics to the songs listed above, found here
Except, His Name is Crazy (aka Crazy Man):
 |
|||||||||||||
| I could talk for hours About nothing in particular Ranting uselessly, profusely Get charmed or charming This big-eyed evening Left me numb for the next few days I can still smell the chemical Nosing it’s way up to my lap Like a playground heart attack Chemi-chemi-chemical reaction Chemi-chemi-chemical reaction Chemi-chemi-chemi-chemi-chemi-chemi
Chorus: Indiscreet, and me a fight Chorus: Island shutters Chorus
|
|||||||||||||
Alright, we all know none of us are perfect, in that our likes/hobbies/etc don’t align wonderously with our politics. So I’m posting some songs–or the songs are fine, but the music video?!? GTFO–that are not woman-friendly, yet I like. EGGGAAAADDDSSSS!!!
Hides head in shaaaamme!
The radfem police are so gonna get me and take away my membership for this! Teehee.
Katy Perry Hot n Cold (self explanatory)
(the video is to just the song, because the music video goes wayyyy too far in regards to sexualising violence to be able to stomach in any way)
(They play brothers Sam and Dean on Supernatural, which is such a misogynist show, but I lap up the wincest subtext 
)
Don’t Trust Me – 3Oh!3 (oh, fucking hell. Needs no explanation. The last verse is the worst, I usually skip over it.)
The Bad Touch – The Bloodhound Gang (I’m sooo sorry, really. This is the only song of theirs I like, I swear.)
Lady Marmalade – Pink, Mya, Lil Kim, Christina, Missy Elliot (this is a collection of good, some great singers, but ah, helllll nah to the glorification of prostitution)
Personal Jesus – Depeche Mode (couldn’t find it on youtube, but they are in a goddamm brothel! wtf!) But Marilyn Manson’s version is worse. *le groan and le barf*
Under My Thumb – Rolling Stones (I only like the music/tune, and want to strangle Mick and shove Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics down his huge piehole)
Like a Pill – Pink (I don’t think Pink often pulls off being sexual without being objectified)
Rocky Racoon – The Beatles (woman as possession. damn you paul! and your deer eyes!)
OK, we’ll call it a day.
Next shall be songs and artists that sexualise women without objectifying them, as in, women as sexual, not sexy-for-male-gaze. “I’m coming for ya” not “Come and get me.” I’ll just list most I’ll be including to explain better: Sophie B Hawkins, Storm Large, Tori Amos, Jill Scott, Yeastie Girlz, Cyndi Lauper, kd lang, and Blue October. I need to earn my radfem card back
And if you’re still scratching your head, you’ll just have to wait a few days to get a sensical explanation of the next post. But here’s two examples of Sophie Hawkins:
Right Beside You (won’t let me embed, but you should watch it 
)
And a duet with Melissa Etheridge!
I damn near had a squee fit-heart attack-orgasm rolled into one when I found out that not only are the Manic Street Preachers coming to North America for the first time in a decade, but they’d be playing in Toronto on October 4. Anyone want to go with me? (herein lies proof)
FUCK YEAH!
ps i just got back a couple days ago doing an activist training camp for earth justice.
I pour you gravy, over some pies tonight…
someone on a manics comm stated that weebl was james, and bob sean. TOTALLY true. and made it even funnier.
 | berryblade on a charged fb conversation |
 | Julian on comment on julian real’s… |
 | demonista on comment on julian real’s… |
| demonista on comment on julian real’s… |
| demonista on comment on julian real’s… |
