Following is the message I left online for Prime Minister Trudeau on his official government page at https://pm.gc.ca/eng/connect :
I read the PM's statement today about the event at Montreal on Dec 6, 1989. I beg to differ, but the women were not killed simply because they were women. that is now an outdated way of looking at it. It was complicated, and it was about some men having to give up opportunities of the career they dreamed of. Marc Lépine must have been treated badly by women - staff - and feminists to have done what he did.
I know what it's like to not be able to have the career you wanted, because you didn't have enough money, or were too old when you went to university - I was 43 when the killings happened - an undergrad at university. Since then I got my MA and started a PhD, which I did not have enough support for, moneywise. When women go for it, they have to use every resource they can drum up. I was too old to start having to compete with younger women, and could not buy my way into a better position.
I never had a career either, but I did learn to write, and so I write, on Sue's Views on the News. Or at least, I used to write. Now I struggle just to get the healthcare I need, a good part of the time, unsuccessfully. What with women secretaries using their power to make things worse, and doctors probably thinking these women are to be trusted, and seeing no reason to provide care to a 70 year old with no husband, no family nearby to be at appointments with me, that no one is gaining anything worthwhile from, I have been left out. Like Marc Lépine, I have not been treated fairly nor compassionately.
This was not a typical situation of violence against women. Most violence against women happens between a couple who at least know one another and are often married. The killings committed by Marc Lépine were about a man being left behind while feminists prospered.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women
by Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario: https://pm.gc.ca
December 6, 2016
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/12/06/statement-prime-minister-canada-national-day-remembrance-and-action-violence-against
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women:
“Twenty-seven years ago today, 14 young women were murdered at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal simply because they were women.
“On this somber anniversary, let us reflect on what Canadians – women, men, and youth – can do to rid the country and the planet of the scourges of misogyny and gender-based violence.
“The statistics on violence against girls and women are unacceptable. Far too many girls and women, here in Canada and around the world, suffer physical and psychological harm at the hands of others – often people they love and trust.
“On this day – and every day – we recommit ourselves to finding solutions that help prevent future acts of violence. Men and boys are a vital part of the solution to change attitudes and behaviours that allow for this violence to exist. There must be zero tolerance for violence against women, and only with everyone’s support can we build a Canada that is safe for all.
“That is why the Government of Canada is investing in several programs, both in Canada and around the world, to help promote gender equality by supporting education and prevention efforts, as well as helping those who have been targeted by gender-based violence. For example, we will continue to grow and maintain Canada’s network of shelters and transition houses, so no one fleeing domestic violence is left without a place to turn.
“As we mourn today with the families and friends of those bright and talented young women who were victims of that senseless act of hatred, I encourage everyone to think about how their own personal actions matter. Start by joining the conversation online using the hashtag #ActionsMatter. Together we can change minds and stop gender-based violence before it starts.”
Showing posts with label gender politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender politics. Show all posts
6 December 2016
12 April 2015
Health care among single, older women – a case of discrimination for OHRT
Added April 23, 2015: transcript of short 6 minute excerpt of audio recording of Dr’s appointment April 28, 2014.
This week, on April 10, I submitted an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (OHRT), alleging discrimination by my family doctor on the grounds of sex; family and marital status; and age. The general area of discrimination I filed it under was ‘Goods, Services and Facilities,’ specifically, ‘Medical/health services’.
I had already tried to resolve the matter, or various aspects of it, through LDAM, the London and District Academy of Medicine, with no success, then filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), in June, 2014. I have received very little feedback on that, except that it is still in progress, I am told. While the CPSO complaint is directed largely towards a lack of professionalism in general in the behaviour, attitude, and practices of the doctor, the application for the HRT is about specific incidents and situations that reflect discriminatory attitudes as well as practices that discriminate on grounds covered by the Code.
The CPSO form was quite vague in the way it asks for information, and even though I included headings under which I thought the behaviour or attitudes would fall, the first investigator immediately changed it to what she saw as the problem. Having the “investigator” be the one who decides what will be told to the Committee is hardly reassuring. While they may claim to be unbiased, even the fact they claim to be suggests they aren’t. If a person cannot acknowledge normal human frailties, but think they are superhuman in their ability to be objective, how can we have faith in their decisions? I especially did not like the CPSO’s decision to file my complaint under the heading “Communication and termination” as it seemed to minimize what happened, and to clinically sanitize, as it were, what was really going on – the biases the doctor held and the actual incidents of bullying, harassment, and unprofessional behaviour.
I decided to go forward with the application with the Human Rights Tribunal, based on grounds covered by the Human Rights Code. What this means is that, in this case, I have stated in the application that my HRT complaint is on the grounds of sex (meaning male or female); family and marital status; and age. I have focused on two incidents only (and their ramifications), and gone into greater detail on these two incidents than I did in the original CPSO complaint. One incident was an ultrasound test I was sent for, which not only created much discomfort and risk but seemed to be altogether unnecessary. The other event was an appointment with the doctor which turned into a scenario of outright hostility and the outrageous and uncalled for demand that I submit to a urine test for what he called “street drugs” (see excerpt of transcript of 6 min audio recording of April 28, 2014 appointment).
The human rights tribunal application is a more structured form than the CPSO complaints form, although perhaps it also makes a difference that over this last year my thoughts on this period in my life have become clearer, in terms of their significance, so I am better able to express them, and more concisely.
Below are the headings for my responses to the questions on the two incidents and for their effect on me, and why I believe it was discrimination, for the Human Rights Tribunal. To read, follow the links to the pages. The information is the same as what appears in the application itself, though I have not disclosed the name of the doctor who is the subject of the complaint.
The two events are described in terms of what, who, when and where. Following that is an explanation of the effect it had on me.
1. Pelvic renal ultrasound incident and Effect on me of Pelvic renal ultrasound incident
2. Urine sample, “street drugs” and termination
Effect on me of Urine sample, “street drugs” and termination
The last part directly addresses the matter of discrimination, and why I believe I was discriminated against. For this part, the starting point is the type of discrimination. And the three types of discrimination are 1. sex, 2.family and marital status, and 3. age. For each of these, I explained why I believed I was discriminated against, eg., starting with ‘sex,’ I told how I was discriminated against on the basis of being female. For ‘family and marital status’ my focus was on not having family close by, nor a husband, and how that can affect quality of health care. And finally, age, the one factor that seems to have everyone concerned about the burden older people are presumably putting on the health care system – or some of us, at least.
These are the three areas I wrote about, on the HRT application, explaining why I believe I was discriminated against:
3. Discrimination on the grounds of sex
Pelvic renal ultrasound test
Urine sample, “street drugs,” and termination
4. Discrimination on the grounds of family and marital status
Pelvic renal ultrasound incident
Urine sample, “street drugs,” and termination
5. Discrimination on the grounds of age
Pelvic renal ultrasound incident
Urine sample, “street drugs,” and termination
There were other questions asked on the application form. See links following for my responses:
6. Remedy I am asking for
7. Why the other proceeding (LDAM) could not deal with my complaint
8. Other important information the tribunal should know
9. Practices and policies complained about
In my responses, I have quoted from other sources, though I had virtually no advice on how to go about this HRT process and am not sure I did this the way they wanted me to. I can only hope it will be taken seriously. It certainly was serious for me. Regardless of what happens, I want it to be known that this is what I experienced. Whether it was a unique kind of situation, or one that others have experienced, I do not know, although I do know that discrimination on the grounds of sex, as well as on the grounds of family and marital status, and age, exists in various ways within the healthcare system.
List of References used in the application form questions on discrimination for the HRTO
Ageism: Concepts and Theories, Law Commission of Ontario, 2009. Retr Jan 20, 2015
http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/older-adults-lco-funded-papers-charmaine-spencer-sectionII
Code Definitions (I), Code Protections for Relationships (III), POLICY AND GUIDELINES ON DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF FAMILY STATUS, OHRC. March 28, 2007. Retr March 22, 2015. http://www.ohrc.on.ca
Collaborating with Patients and Others, Duties: To the Patient. Principles of Practice and Duties of Physicians. CPSO Policies and Publications. Retrieved March 26, 2015.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies-Publications/The-Practice-Guide-Medical-Professionalism-and-Col/Principles-of-Practice-and-Duties-of-Physicians
Defining Discrimination Based on Family Status, OHRC Policies etc on family status. Retr Jan 25, 2015 http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/Policy_and_guidelines_on_discrimination_because_of_family_status.pdf
Ending the Physician Patient Relationship, CPSO Policies and Publications, Sept 2008.
Retrieved March 26, 2015.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies-Publications/Policy/Ending-the-Physician-Patient-Relationship
http://www.cpso.on.ca/CPSO/media/uploadedfiles/policies/policies/policyitems/ending_rel.pdf?ext=.pdf
Incontinence: The Canadian Perspective, Cameron Institute, Canadian Continence Foundation, Dec 2014. Retr Mar 25/15.
‘Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code’, Policy Number:#5-08. Policy Category: Practice, Publication Date: December 2008, Introduction. Retrieved Feb 22, 2015.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies-Publications/Policy/Physicians-and-the-Ontario-Human-Rights-Code
‘Principles of Practice and Duties of Physicians,’ Policies and Publications, CPSO website. Retr March 24, 2015. http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies-Publications/The-Practice-Guide-Medical-Professionalism-and-Col/Principles-of-Practice-and-Duties-of-Physicians
This week, on April 10, I submitted an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (OHRT), alleging discrimination by my family doctor on the grounds of sex; family and marital status; and age. The general area of discrimination I filed it under was ‘Goods, Services and Facilities,’ specifically, ‘Medical/health services’.
I had already tried to resolve the matter, or various aspects of it, through LDAM, the London and District Academy of Medicine, with no success, then filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), in June, 2014. I have received very little feedback on that, except that it is still in progress, I am told. While the CPSO complaint is directed largely towards a lack of professionalism in general in the behaviour, attitude, and practices of the doctor, the application for the HRT is about specific incidents and situations that reflect discriminatory attitudes as well as practices that discriminate on grounds covered by the Code.
The CPSO form was quite vague in the way it asks for information, and even though I included headings under which I thought the behaviour or attitudes would fall, the first investigator immediately changed it to what she saw as the problem. Having the “investigator” be the one who decides what will be told to the Committee is hardly reassuring. While they may claim to be unbiased, even the fact they claim to be suggests they aren’t. If a person cannot acknowledge normal human frailties, but think they are superhuman in their ability to be objective, how can we have faith in their decisions? I especially did not like the CPSO’s decision to file my complaint under the heading “Communication and termination” as it seemed to minimize what happened, and to clinically sanitize, as it were, what was really going on – the biases the doctor held and the actual incidents of bullying, harassment, and unprofessional behaviour.
I decided to go forward with the application with the Human Rights Tribunal, based on grounds covered by the Human Rights Code. What this means is that, in this case, I have stated in the application that my HRT complaint is on the grounds of sex (meaning male or female); family and marital status; and age. I have focused on two incidents only (and their ramifications), and gone into greater detail on these two incidents than I did in the original CPSO complaint. One incident was an ultrasound test I was sent for, which not only created much discomfort and risk but seemed to be altogether unnecessary. The other event was an appointment with the doctor which turned into a scenario of outright hostility and the outrageous and uncalled for demand that I submit to a urine test for what he called “street drugs” (see excerpt of transcript of 6 min audio recording of April 28, 2014 appointment).
The human rights tribunal application is a more structured form than the CPSO complaints form, although perhaps it also makes a difference that over this last year my thoughts on this period in my life have become clearer, in terms of their significance, so I am better able to express them, and more concisely.
Below are the headings for my responses to the questions on the two incidents and for their effect on me, and why I believe it was discrimination, for the Human Rights Tribunal. To read, follow the links to the pages. The information is the same as what appears in the application itself, though I have not disclosed the name of the doctor who is the subject of the complaint.
The two events are described in terms of what, who, when and where. Following that is an explanation of the effect it had on me.
1. Pelvic renal ultrasound incident and Effect on me of Pelvic renal ultrasound incident
2. Urine sample, “street drugs” and termination
Effect on me of Urine sample, “street drugs” and termination
The last part directly addresses the matter of discrimination, and why I believe I was discriminated against. For this part, the starting point is the type of discrimination. And the three types of discrimination are 1. sex, 2.family and marital status, and 3. age. For each of these, I explained why I believed I was discriminated against, eg., starting with ‘sex,’ I told how I was discriminated against on the basis of being female. For ‘family and marital status’ my focus was on not having family close by, nor a husband, and how that can affect quality of health care. And finally, age, the one factor that seems to have everyone concerned about the burden older people are presumably putting on the health care system – or some of us, at least.
These are the three areas I wrote about, on the HRT application, explaining why I believe I was discriminated against:
3. Discrimination on the grounds of sex
Pelvic renal ultrasound test
Urine sample, “street drugs,” and termination
4. Discrimination on the grounds of family and marital status
Pelvic renal ultrasound incident
Urine sample, “street drugs,” and termination
5. Discrimination on the grounds of age
Pelvic renal ultrasound incident
Urine sample, “street drugs,” and termination
There were other questions asked on the application form. See links following for my responses:
6. Remedy I am asking for
7. Why the other proceeding (LDAM) could not deal with my complaint
8. Other important information the tribunal should know
9. Practices and policies complained about
In my responses, I have quoted from other sources, though I had virtually no advice on how to go about this HRT process and am not sure I did this the way they wanted me to. I can only hope it will be taken seriously. It certainly was serious for me. Regardless of what happens, I want it to be known that this is what I experienced. Whether it was a unique kind of situation, or one that others have experienced, I do not know, although I do know that discrimination on the grounds of sex, as well as on the grounds of family and marital status, and age, exists in various ways within the healthcare system.
List of References used in the application form questions on discrimination for the HRTO
Ageism: Concepts and Theories, Law Commission of Ontario, 2009. Retr Jan 20, 2015
http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/older-adults-lco-funded-papers-charmaine-spencer-sectionII
Code Definitions (I), Code Protections for Relationships (III), POLICY AND GUIDELINES ON DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF FAMILY STATUS, OHRC. March 28, 2007. Retr March 22, 2015. http://www.ohrc.on.ca
Collaborating with Patients and Others, Duties: To the Patient. Principles of Practice and Duties of Physicians. CPSO Policies and Publications. Retrieved March 26, 2015.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies-Publications/The-Practice-Guide-Medical-Professionalism-and-Col/Principles-of-Practice-and-Duties-of-Physicians
Defining Discrimination Based on Family Status, OHRC Policies etc on family status. Retr Jan 25, 2015 http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/Policy_and_guidelines_on_discrimination_because_of_family_status.pdf
Ending the Physician Patient Relationship, CPSO Policies and Publications, Sept 2008.
Retrieved March 26, 2015.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies-Publications/Policy/Ending-the-Physician-Patient-Relationship
http://www.cpso.on.ca/CPSO/media/uploadedfiles/policies/policies/policyitems/ending_rel.pdf?ext=.pdf
Incontinence: The Canadian Perspective, Cameron Institute, Canadian Continence Foundation, Dec 2014. Retr Mar 25/15.
‘Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code’, Policy Number:#5-08. Policy Category: Practice, Publication Date: December 2008, Introduction. Retrieved Feb 22, 2015.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies-Publications/Policy/Physicians-and-the-Ontario-Human-Rights-Code
‘Principles of Practice and Duties of Physicians,’ Policies and Publications, CPSO website. Retr March 24, 2015. http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies-Publications/The-Practice-Guide-Medical-Professionalism-and-Col/Principles-of-Practice-and-Duties-of-Physicians
6 March 2012
The decriminalization of prostitution: two women talking
Susan Davis, a Vancouver, BC, activist working for the rights of prostitutes, and me, Sue McPherson, from London, Ontario, not so keen on having prostitution activities decriminalized, had a discussion recently on the pages of rabble.ca (see excerpt below), in response to the March 2 article by Joyce Arthur (see link to article and comments in list of references).
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 4:38pm.
What is a 'prostitution abolitionist' and who describes themselves thus?
Prostitution is not going to end. The selling of sex is never going to stop. But let's not equate working as a cashier with selling time to men during which they insert their penis into women's bodies. Let's not ever make the laws such that some women who cannot get other kinds of work will be encouraged, legally, or perseuaded, or forced into prostitution.
This topic - and the efforts of women to decriminalize it, cannot be rationalized. The world is a not a rational place but is filled with contradictions, especially where sex is concerned. Unfortunately, or should that be fortunately, prostitution has to stay exactly where it is. If anyone wants to introduce more health benefits, fine. But don't make this act of male penetration (and whatever else) into what might be an unwilling participant, legal.
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 5:01pm.
Do you know that anyone who contributes towards easier access of sex for men will problaby do better in this world?
You say, "the abolitionist myth that 'prostituted women' are all passive victims of violent predators and pimps leads to an almost-hilarious contradiction when it confronts the realities of sex workers' lives.
I don't know what that is either - "abolitionist myth." I do know that women who have little or nothing are more likely to be the ones who get men coming on to them as though it is their right, as though all women have to contribute something "worthwhile" to the world, and as they see it, sex is it if they have no other means of support, or no one in their lives. Know why women seek out the best possible marriage partner they can - it's because all women must have a man in their lives, if not one, then share many with other women. What a choice! Circumstances play a great part in how one's life will turn out. But sex is always part of it. So, "almost hilarious contractions" is it? Not for everyone.
susan davis on March 2, 2012 - 9:27pm.
thankyou joyce for continuing to fight the mis information campaigns of the abolitionists. the complete disgregard abolitionists have for the facts is the biggest contributing factor to the on going degradation of the safety of sex workers in canada.
people listen, people believe them, policy is written based on these mis representations...
we have to move forward based on the facts and reality of working in the sex industry. i for one need no rescue and have not experienced any violence in years. yes it happens, no one is saying it doesn't. but how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that? it's not. only with sound planning and implementation of industry wide standards will we see improvement in the working conditions of sex workers.
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 9:57pm.
I doubt very much that policy is written based solely on what you call "misrepresentations," Susan. Unless we know your circumstances, how can we come to understand why you haven't experienced violence while on the job. If you have women siding with you, as protection, perhaps that's what it takes. You're asking the wrong Q when you say, "how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that?" There really isn't an alternative solution to this problem, without putting all female children potentially at risk. I'm sure most people don't want to see prostitutes arrested, but there just isn't another way for police to keep the peace. Prostitution simply cannot be legitimized in the way that you want, without it leading to all sorts of problems within society for other women, especially women who live in poverty.
The problem is, you are only thinking of yourselves, not other women and young girl children learning about the world.
susan davis on March 3, 2012 - 11:10am.
perhaps if you read the reports we wrote on the experiences of 100's of sex workers and didn't subscribe to the idea that sex workers are either victims or greedy gold diggers you could see past your morality based arguements.
i live in total poverty, why is it that it's always the assumption that we are making boat loads of money and that we're so self centered that we are blind to the fate of our sisters in the sex industry?
i have dedicated the last 10 years of my life to the fight for equality, equal access to support services and police protection and improved safety and stability for sex working people in this country.
i have worked for 25 years in an industry with no labour standards or even protection of law. i have been in prison, worked on the street, survived 4 overdoses and numerous assaults and attempts on my life.
who are you? you clearly have not bothered to tkae the time to listen to sex workers from all over canada and to hear that we DO have altneratives, there is a better way to protect us. give us our equality and decriminalize us now.
the only path is to implement occupational health and safety programs and to work towards unweaving the tangled web of mainstream systems biases, not one of which does not affect our lives, and to give sex working people the same rights as every other canadian citizen enjoy.
i am not some lone profiteering exploitative self centered prostitute with only an eye for cash and other people's husbands. i resent the implcation as well. you don't know me.
www.wccsip.ca
www.bccec.wordpress.com
www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com read this occupational health and safety training and tell me if you think it will encourage people to enter the sex industry? information about abusive pimps and what happens when you are the victim of an assault and the way the police may treat you is hardly normalizing or encouraging anyone. or how about the extensive lists of health risks? sounds glamourous.
Sue McPherson on March 3, 2012 - 2:33pm.
Is it a question of morality when a person says they would rather their daughter did not become a prostitute? I consider myself fairly open-minded but I still wouldn't want that occupation for my daughter. But if she went into it, it wouldn't make any difference to our relationship, I'm sure. People have different beliefs and ways of perceiving the world and of acting in it, and it can become a problem when different interests collide, as they do over the decriminalization of prostitution. People might like to say "live and let live" as their way of dealing with difference, which is fine unless someone's toes get stepped on. You can do what you like, as long as it doesn't affect me or mine, or society (just because I am interested in how society goes). But what you are asking for - decriminalization, and the right to negoitate legally, does affect me, or could. and it would affect society, as I mentioned in one of my other posts.
You can't talk about sex work as though it is the same as being a cashier, or a firefighter, or a gardener. It - sex - is an act of intimacy, or at least is often considered to be by many people. If not an act of emotional intimacy, then at least it is an act of physical intimacy. Where does one person's individual personal sense of privacy start? Some people don't like to be touched on the arm. But I think there's more who would object to having to let a stranger engage in sexual intercourse with them. I don't see it as being about morality when a person wants the right not to have to argue that they don't want their privacy interfered with on this level. It's bad enough when landlord or maintenance man decides to enter your home without asking first. But one can let that slide. So if prostitution loses its 'criminal" edge, I should think it would make many men more willing to see how far they can take it - and not with the rich and powerful or women with husbands. It will be with the most vulnerable in society. Just because it's your choice doesn't mean that all women want to subjected to the behaviours that will crop up if it is decriminalized.
This is my blog: /http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com . I have written quite a bit about sexual politics and other forms of social inequality, not so much on prostitution per se.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 12:57pm.
sue, your privelged upbringing and higher education, your international migrations and lack of experience with poverty, being racialized or marginalized doesn't allow you to understnad the choices made by people who do face those experiences.
it is easy to say sex work is bad, abolish prostitution for the betterment of society because you will not be affected. you comment that you would not want your daughter or grand daughter to engage in sex work. the point is that you will not be there when your child makes a decision about sex work...would you not rather they could make that decision in safety? or would you be willing to see your child go missing? go to prison?be found murdered?fed to the pigs? be cast out of society because of your ideals?
how would that help them? it wouldn't. my parents and the other parents of sex workers feel the same way you do. no one imagines their child becoming a sex worker or dumpster diver or drug dealer, toiletter scrubber, or grave digger...
but it happens, its a fact. continuing to complicate the situation by basing policy on biased and discriminatory ideals rather than fact will cost people, women their lives. are you prepared to own your ideals even if it means the murder of women, and children ...or their incarcaration and humiliation?
there are laws to protect people from assault, slavery, abuse, extortion, debt servitude and labour laws to guarantee safe working conditions. there is the international charter of human rights guarnteeing us equal access to justice and safety.
or is it your belief that only those deemed "good" or "moral" are human and deserving of rights? sex workers were only classifed as human beings in vancouver in 1973. is this the approach you prefer?
we need rights and decriminalization in order to take control of our collective destinies and safety and what we don't need is people trying to impose their tired old ethics at the expense of our lives and safety.it's been 100 years of prohibition, it's over. the social experiment failed miserably, people are dead.
can we please move on and try something new?
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 2:25pm.
I'm not so secure financially that I don't have to worry about things like that in my own life. I'm living on the edge, so to speak, not from month to month, but wondering how long I can last. All my resources went towards my education (at midlife), leaving me with nothing when there was no career to follow. I hadn't realized that the right relationships, with men and/or women, and conforming (not writing about what I do), were all essential to being accepted and rewarded for all my hard work. Susan, it seems you haven't read anything of mine or you might have realized that. Here's my life story, for additional info: http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html .
So, yes, I do understand the experience of being marginalized and in poverty. And one thing I noticed, in case I didn't make that clear, was the first thing that happens is that men start to close in, figuring it's only a matter of time until you submit sexually, in order to survive.
That's an odd remark about motherhood that you make. Perhaps becoming a prostitute was a one-time decision for you, but I spent much of my time when married making sure my children had every opportunity available, to pursue their interests and learn new ones. It worked for my daughter, who followed our family's interest in swimming to her life's work. My ideals helped that happen. I know life isn't always that straightforward, but my ideals certainly didn't do her harm. As far as my views about sex are concerned, that's up to her what she does.
It's you , Susan, who is putting on this subject the condemnation of religion and saying that is my moral compass too, which it isn't. There can be a kind of 'morality,' if you insist on using that term, that doesn't include the notions of sin or God. I've already said to you that our world is not as rational a place as you would like to think it is. this isn't only about you having your rights. It's also about the rights of others to live in peace, without having to put up with men who start to think even more strongly about their apparent right to have sex with any woman they like. And there are men like that.
If you can address some of these concerns it might do your cause more good than simply demanding the decriminalization of prostitution and the right to negotiate freely with your customers. I don't want to be subjected to men who think that, because the law has changed, that they have the right to offer money to any woman who is vulnerable and isolated, for sex. You have to say how you are going to control men who take this as a new freedom in their lives. I don't want to see young women sent to the local brothel by the job agency because there is no other work avaiable for her.
I haven't actually noticed that laws protect me from illegal and harmful behaviours I have been subjected to. But I have seen women siding with men who do them, and men not wanting to cause offence towards the source of their joy. This is as much about sex as it is about prostitution, the work. I know feminists are fond of saying men and women are equal or should be, and some will work with you towards getting what you want, but their lives aren't going to be affected. Furthermore, when it comes to sexual desires and physical needs, they're not the same at all. I would want to know that world won't be a worse place for the vulnerable if decriminalization were to take place.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 2:40pm.
have you read anything we've written ...or the sex worker rights forum here? we have written plenty and people are listening. you seem to be a bit behind the times if you think sex workers aren't speking out.
about your daughter you say "it is up to her what she does" but what if that included sex work? no one is saying people should be forced to do sex work as an alternative to social assistance or that the government should force women into sex work. that is not decriminalization.
as it stands no one can be "forced to work" at any profession, even by the government. why would sex work be any different? why would the government force people into sex work when it does not force people into any other profession? your fears there are unfounded.
however, beauty bias does come into play when now for people trying to access finacial support and are told to become escorts or exotic dancers because they are pretty. some people are denied finacial support because they are a sex worker, whether they want to exit or not.
so how does continuing to criminalize us help with that? it doesn't. it means that anything people do to us is accepteable, we are criminals and get what we deserve.
decriminalization has NOT produced the effect you are describing in any of the countries where it has taken place. in fact the opposite. you are basing your position on moral panic, mis information and a lack of knowledge of the facts. the "vulnerable" are the ones criminalized. the workers on the street bare the brunt of police enforcement actions and as brothels and show lounges are closed due to criminalization, more and more workers are forced onto the street. more and more workers die also. we can see that in the mortality rate of vancouver sex workers escalating over a number decades as a result of uniformed actions taken against our industry. please read the history of sex work thread in the sex worker rights forum.
take a little time to educate yourself on the facts, your position has no backbone in reality. do you care about sex worker safety or not?
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 4:48pm.
Hey, lady, we all do sex work (or have done). It's what women were born to do! Didn't you know that? Some people are just more open about what they get in return - money, careers, a home with hubby! Most women wouldn't say that about themselves, as it is a norm in society. We are simply raised to be that way. Some are quite knowing and use their feminine wiles in practical ways to get what they want.
It's not the govt who does the persuading, when it comes to what kind of work a person will do. The clerks at the job centre, or the personnel office at the place of work gets to choose who will get accepted and who will not. So anything done to poor people is acceptable - as you seem to already know - unless they are actually doing sex work, then they have worth.
No, I have not seen any facts on how decrimilaization has affected other countries. I don't know how easy it would be to get hold of. I just know what men are like now, and it doesn't take too much effort to see how decriminalizing the negotiation of sex will lead to all sorts of social 'misunderstandings'. Having already been a victim of similar kinds of misunderstandings, where intentions or behaviour were misunderstood, and in situations where such behaviour was regulated against, I can only surmise that it will get worse, if there is no fear of reprisal among men for their bad behaviour.
I have always heard about prostitutes struggles for healthcare, etc, but that also is something many other women and men are not getting in this society. Yes, I'm sure your work is dangerous to your safety. Men can be like that. You may experience more of that, because of your job, but many women have also experienced violence, at the hands of stronger men or men who control them.
I don't see that the ones doing work that is criminalized are the more vulnerable. It's because it is sex work, and men who find themselves in need of sex, or wanting to punish someone for what some other woman has done to them will seek out the most vulnerable - the one isolated, or lacking money, homeless, or without a man in her life.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 7:24pm.
the men who purchase sex are not "bad men" nor are all men prone to violence....this seems like you are unwilling to step outside of your comfort zone and actually look up the facts.
why can't men be vulnerable? why do we as a society assume all men are only out for themselves and self gratification? a man whose penis has been amputated to prevent the spread of cancer is vulnerable and in need of care. he is not a "bad" person nor is his lonliess "bad behaviour". he is suffering. why does he not deserve to be comforted and if a sex worker chooses to do so, why should she not comfort him? how is this "bad"?
can you imagine if suddenly being a nurse was illegal? how easy would it be for nurses to work if they were deemed criminals? or how about milk? what if milk was sudeenly illegal and milk producers had to operate in dark isolated areas risking their lives to sell their wares?
i mean criminalizing alcohol didn't "harm" anyone did it? or criminalizing drugs? or abortion? how can you be so blind to the impacts of being deemed criminal and the impact of being the victim of police violence during raids?
you have created a seperate set of rules for sex workers. that is discrimination and is illegal under the international charter of human rights.
please at least have the respect enough if not for us but yourself to actually read up on this a bit and discover perhaps where you may have yourself discriminated against sex workers and ways in which you could better embrace government of canada policies governing research and understand which "facts ' you are being mislead with.
those rules are in place for a reason... to inform canadians about the ethics and reliability of the research findings they are considering. try to understnad from our perspective, being a criminal is a huge barrier as is a criminal record. how is arresting women helping them?
these laws are completely ineffective, its time to protect people not punish them and to try something new.
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 9:56pm.
But we were talking about the men who made your life less secure - the ones who commit acts of violence? I know from doing research on sexual harassment that not all men who do this are nasty men either - many are husbands and fathers and otherwise good, hardworking, intelligent men.
Oh right - nurses. This entire issue has nothing to sex, is that what you're saying. However, speaking of nurses, read Dutch man sees it his right to have nurses serve his sexual needs: http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/03/dutch-man-sees-it-his-right-to-have.html ... . I hope you see my point of view.
I do realize that prostitutes are hard done by. So are people in the lower classes picked on more than they deserve. After all, it isn't ALL sex workers who get arrested, is it. eg Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the prostitutes he was involved with. He was so important he didn't even have to admit they were. But sex work is still not the same as being a cashier, much as you would like the Human Rights Commission to say it is. It's pointless for me to simply repeat what I've already said, but that's about it - selling sexual intercourse is not the same as any other job.
No discrimination doesn't apply in the case of prostitution because it's about sex. It's a sensitive topic and we simply cannot have an act of sex for money made legal because of the implications this would have for society. Don't worry about the criminal record. Everyone knows it's unfair and if it's used against you it's because they don't like the colour of your hair or your views on football. Perhaps some lawkeepers want to punish you - just as some of your clients do. But working within the law, if it were changed, won't keep you much safer. The men who would have abused you will have to find other ways of dealing with their frustrations; instead, going after other vulnerable and isolated women. Decriminalizing prostitution isn't going to make the abusive men go away completely. It might make you into an ordinary citizen, just like everyone else, but that won't keep you safe.
Susan, what I can do, with your permission, is publish this discussion we've had on my blog, including a link to the original article on rabble.ca by Joyce Arthur. It's another outlet for people to read your views, and mine.
susan davis on March 5, 2012 - 10:26am.
won't make it "much safer"....based on what research or other countries expeireinces? it will make it safer and the sex workers used by dominque strauss-kahn are not immune. in the US, i watched on "sex slaves in detriot" last night, they arrest women to "rescue" girls. i also commincate with US workers through the social justice work i do...they arrested 100 women in 1 episode, showed their faced, filmed them naked, broadcast it on television....total humiliation, in my opinion it's violence when police to these kinds of degrading things. they were all indoor workers in highend hotels. the sting was police in the hotel baiting the workers. in the end the had "leads" on 3 pimps and 5 "girls" no arrests in that area but had comprimised the safety, confidentiality and dignity of over 100 women.... arresting them all in the name of "rescue".
just becuase you don't hear about sex workers being charged doesn't mean it doesn't happen. thst show was on back to back to back last night....how many women were comprimised throughout the 3 episodes...?
and sure, if you would like to repost this to your blog, i am good with that.
(continued at http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts )
Any changes to prostitution laws not coming soon
By Sam Pazzano
Toronto Sun
June 19, 2011
Ottawa Sun
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/19/any-changes-to-prostitution-lawsnot-coming-soon
How prostitution abolitionists substitute ideologies for facts
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
March 2, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts
The mistaken logic of 'asymmetrical criminalization' -- aka the Nordic model of prostitution
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
February 3, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/crazy-logic-asymmetrical-criminalization-aka-nordic-model-prostitution
Ontario Appeal Court decriminalizes brothels (article added Sept 2012)
CTVNews.ca Staff
Mar 26, 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120326/appeal-court-decision-canada-sex-trade-laws-120326/
Prostitution ‘not a constitutionally-protected right,’ Crown argues in landmark case
By Kirk Makin
Globe and Mail
June 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prostitution-not-a-constitutionally-protected-right-crown-argues-in-landmark-case/article2058348/
Who does decriminalization leave out?
By Meghan Murphy
The F Word, and Feminist Current
Jan 30, 2012
http://www.feminisms.org/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/
http://feministcurrent.com/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 4:38pm.
What is a 'prostitution abolitionist' and who describes themselves thus?
Prostitution is not going to end. The selling of sex is never going to stop. But let's not equate working as a cashier with selling time to men during which they insert their penis into women's bodies. Let's not ever make the laws such that some women who cannot get other kinds of work will be encouraged, legally, or perseuaded, or forced into prostitution.
This topic - and the efforts of women to decriminalize it, cannot be rationalized. The world is a not a rational place but is filled with contradictions, especially where sex is concerned. Unfortunately, or should that be fortunately, prostitution has to stay exactly where it is. If anyone wants to introduce more health benefits, fine. But don't make this act of male penetration (and whatever else) into what might be an unwilling participant, legal.
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 5:01pm.
Do you know that anyone who contributes towards easier access of sex for men will problaby do better in this world?
You say, "the abolitionist myth that 'prostituted women' are all passive victims of violent predators and pimps leads to an almost-hilarious contradiction when it confronts the realities of sex workers' lives.
I don't know what that is either - "abolitionist myth." I do know that women who have little or nothing are more likely to be the ones who get men coming on to them as though it is their right, as though all women have to contribute something "worthwhile" to the world, and as they see it, sex is it if they have no other means of support, or no one in their lives. Know why women seek out the best possible marriage partner they can - it's because all women must have a man in their lives, if not one, then share many with other women. What a choice! Circumstances play a great part in how one's life will turn out. But sex is always part of it. So, "almost hilarious contractions" is it? Not for everyone.
susan davis on March 2, 2012 - 9:27pm.
thankyou joyce for continuing to fight the mis information campaigns of the abolitionists. the complete disgregard abolitionists have for the facts is the biggest contributing factor to the on going degradation of the safety of sex workers in canada.
people listen, people believe them, policy is written based on these mis representations...
we have to move forward based on the facts and reality of working in the sex industry. i for one need no rescue and have not experienced any violence in years. yes it happens, no one is saying it doesn't. but how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that? it's not. only with sound planning and implementation of industry wide standards will we see improvement in the working conditions of sex workers.
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 9:57pm.
I doubt very much that policy is written based solely on what you call "misrepresentations," Susan. Unless we know your circumstances, how can we come to understand why you haven't experienced violence while on the job. If you have women siding with you, as protection, perhaps that's what it takes. You're asking the wrong Q when you say, "how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that?" There really isn't an alternative solution to this problem, without putting all female children potentially at risk. I'm sure most people don't want to see prostitutes arrested, but there just isn't another way for police to keep the peace. Prostitution simply cannot be legitimized in the way that you want, without it leading to all sorts of problems within society for other women, especially women who live in poverty.
The problem is, you are only thinking of yourselves, not other women and young girl children learning about the world.
susan davis on March 3, 2012 - 11:10am.
perhaps if you read the reports we wrote on the experiences of 100's of sex workers and didn't subscribe to the idea that sex workers are either victims or greedy gold diggers you could see past your morality based arguements.
i live in total poverty, why is it that it's always the assumption that we are making boat loads of money and that we're so self centered that we are blind to the fate of our sisters in the sex industry?
i have dedicated the last 10 years of my life to the fight for equality, equal access to support services and police protection and improved safety and stability for sex working people in this country.
i have worked for 25 years in an industry with no labour standards or even protection of law. i have been in prison, worked on the street, survived 4 overdoses and numerous assaults and attempts on my life.
who are you? you clearly have not bothered to tkae the time to listen to sex workers from all over canada and to hear that we DO have altneratives, there is a better way to protect us. give us our equality and decriminalize us now.
the only path is to implement occupational health and safety programs and to work towards unweaving the tangled web of mainstream systems biases, not one of which does not affect our lives, and to give sex working people the same rights as every other canadian citizen enjoy.
i am not some lone profiteering exploitative self centered prostitute with only an eye for cash and other people's husbands. i resent the implcation as well. you don't know me.
www.wccsip.ca
www.bccec.wordpress.com
www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com read this occupational health and safety training and tell me if you think it will encourage people to enter the sex industry? information about abusive pimps and what happens when you are the victim of an assault and the way the police may treat you is hardly normalizing or encouraging anyone. or how about the extensive lists of health risks? sounds glamourous.
Sue McPherson on March 3, 2012 - 2:33pm.
Is it a question of morality when a person says they would rather their daughter did not become a prostitute? I consider myself fairly open-minded but I still wouldn't want that occupation for my daughter. But if she went into it, it wouldn't make any difference to our relationship, I'm sure. People have different beliefs and ways of perceiving the world and of acting in it, and it can become a problem when different interests collide, as they do over the decriminalization of prostitution. People might like to say "live and let live" as their way of dealing with difference, which is fine unless someone's toes get stepped on. You can do what you like, as long as it doesn't affect me or mine, or society (just because I am interested in how society goes). But what you are asking for - decriminalization, and the right to negoitate legally, does affect me, or could. and it would affect society, as I mentioned in one of my other posts.
You can't talk about sex work as though it is the same as being a cashier, or a firefighter, or a gardener. It - sex - is an act of intimacy, or at least is often considered to be by many people. If not an act of emotional intimacy, then at least it is an act of physical intimacy. Where does one person's individual personal sense of privacy start? Some people don't like to be touched on the arm. But I think there's more who would object to having to let a stranger engage in sexual intercourse with them. I don't see it as being about morality when a person wants the right not to have to argue that they don't want their privacy interfered with on this level. It's bad enough when landlord or maintenance man decides to enter your home without asking first. But one can let that slide. So if prostitution loses its 'criminal" edge, I should think it would make many men more willing to see how far they can take it - and not with the rich and powerful or women with husbands. It will be with the most vulnerable in society. Just because it's your choice doesn't mean that all women want to subjected to the behaviours that will crop up if it is decriminalized.
This is my blog: /http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com . I have written quite a bit about sexual politics and other forms of social inequality, not so much on prostitution per se.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 12:57pm.
sue, your privelged upbringing and higher education, your international migrations and lack of experience with poverty, being racialized or marginalized doesn't allow you to understnad the choices made by people who do face those experiences.
it is easy to say sex work is bad, abolish prostitution for the betterment of society because you will not be affected. you comment that you would not want your daughter or grand daughter to engage in sex work. the point is that you will not be there when your child makes a decision about sex work...would you not rather they could make that decision in safety? or would you be willing to see your child go missing? go to prison?be found murdered?fed to the pigs? be cast out of society because of your ideals?
how would that help them? it wouldn't. my parents and the other parents of sex workers feel the same way you do. no one imagines their child becoming a sex worker or dumpster diver or drug dealer, toiletter scrubber, or grave digger...
but it happens, its a fact. continuing to complicate the situation by basing policy on biased and discriminatory ideals rather than fact will cost people, women their lives. are you prepared to own your ideals even if it means the murder of women, and children ...or their incarcaration and humiliation?
there are laws to protect people from assault, slavery, abuse, extortion, debt servitude and labour laws to guarantee safe working conditions. there is the international charter of human rights guarnteeing us equal access to justice and safety.
or is it your belief that only those deemed "good" or "moral" are human and deserving of rights? sex workers were only classifed as human beings in vancouver in 1973. is this the approach you prefer?
we need rights and decriminalization in order to take control of our collective destinies and safety and what we don't need is people trying to impose their tired old ethics at the expense of our lives and safety.it's been 100 years of prohibition, it's over. the social experiment failed miserably, people are dead.
can we please move on and try something new?
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 2:25pm.
I'm not so secure financially that I don't have to worry about things like that in my own life. I'm living on the edge, so to speak, not from month to month, but wondering how long I can last. All my resources went towards my education (at midlife), leaving me with nothing when there was no career to follow. I hadn't realized that the right relationships, with men and/or women, and conforming (not writing about what I do), were all essential to being accepted and rewarded for all my hard work. Susan, it seems you haven't read anything of mine or you might have realized that. Here's my life story, for additional info: http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html .
So, yes, I do understand the experience of being marginalized and in poverty. And one thing I noticed, in case I didn't make that clear, was the first thing that happens is that men start to close in, figuring it's only a matter of time until you submit sexually, in order to survive.
That's an odd remark about motherhood that you make. Perhaps becoming a prostitute was a one-time decision for you, but I spent much of my time when married making sure my children had every opportunity available, to pursue their interests and learn new ones. It worked for my daughter, who followed our family's interest in swimming to her life's work. My ideals helped that happen. I know life isn't always that straightforward, but my ideals certainly didn't do her harm. As far as my views about sex are concerned, that's up to her what she does.
It's you , Susan, who is putting on this subject the condemnation of religion and saying that is my moral compass too, which it isn't. There can be a kind of 'morality,' if you insist on using that term, that doesn't include the notions of sin or God. I've already said to you that our world is not as rational a place as you would like to think it is. this isn't only about you having your rights. It's also about the rights of others to live in peace, without having to put up with men who start to think even more strongly about their apparent right to have sex with any woman they like. And there are men like that.
If you can address some of these concerns it might do your cause more good than simply demanding the decriminalization of prostitution and the right to negotiate freely with your customers. I don't want to be subjected to men who think that, because the law has changed, that they have the right to offer money to any woman who is vulnerable and isolated, for sex. You have to say how you are going to control men who take this as a new freedom in their lives. I don't want to see young women sent to the local brothel by the job agency because there is no other work avaiable for her.
I haven't actually noticed that laws protect me from illegal and harmful behaviours I have been subjected to. But I have seen women siding with men who do them, and men not wanting to cause offence towards the source of their joy. This is as much about sex as it is about prostitution, the work. I know feminists are fond of saying men and women are equal or should be, and some will work with you towards getting what you want, but their lives aren't going to be affected. Furthermore, when it comes to sexual desires and physical needs, they're not the same at all. I would want to know that world won't be a worse place for the vulnerable if decriminalization were to take place.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 2:40pm.
have you read anything we've written ...or the sex worker rights forum here? we have written plenty and people are listening. you seem to be a bit behind the times if you think sex workers aren't speking out.
about your daughter you say "it is up to her what she does" but what if that included sex work? no one is saying people should be forced to do sex work as an alternative to social assistance or that the government should force women into sex work. that is not decriminalization.
as it stands no one can be "forced to work" at any profession, even by the government. why would sex work be any different? why would the government force people into sex work when it does not force people into any other profession? your fears there are unfounded.
however, beauty bias does come into play when now for people trying to access finacial support and are told to become escorts or exotic dancers because they are pretty. some people are denied finacial support because they are a sex worker, whether they want to exit or not.
so how does continuing to criminalize us help with that? it doesn't. it means that anything people do to us is accepteable, we are criminals and get what we deserve.
decriminalization has NOT produced the effect you are describing in any of the countries where it has taken place. in fact the opposite. you are basing your position on moral panic, mis information and a lack of knowledge of the facts. the "vulnerable" are the ones criminalized. the workers on the street bare the brunt of police enforcement actions and as brothels and show lounges are closed due to criminalization, more and more workers are forced onto the street. more and more workers die also. we can see that in the mortality rate of vancouver sex workers escalating over a number decades as a result of uniformed actions taken against our industry. please read the history of sex work thread in the sex worker rights forum.
take a little time to educate yourself on the facts, your position has no backbone in reality. do you care about sex worker safety or not?
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 4:48pm.
Hey, lady, we all do sex work (or have done). It's what women were born to do! Didn't you know that? Some people are just more open about what they get in return - money, careers, a home with hubby! Most women wouldn't say that about themselves, as it is a norm in society. We are simply raised to be that way. Some are quite knowing and use their feminine wiles in practical ways to get what they want.
It's not the govt who does the persuading, when it comes to what kind of work a person will do. The clerks at the job centre, or the personnel office at the place of work gets to choose who will get accepted and who will not. So anything done to poor people is acceptable - as you seem to already know - unless they are actually doing sex work, then they have worth.
No, I have not seen any facts on how decrimilaization has affected other countries. I don't know how easy it would be to get hold of. I just know what men are like now, and it doesn't take too much effort to see how decriminalizing the negotiation of sex will lead to all sorts of social 'misunderstandings'. Having already been a victim of similar kinds of misunderstandings, where intentions or behaviour were misunderstood, and in situations where such behaviour was regulated against, I can only surmise that it will get worse, if there is no fear of reprisal among men for their bad behaviour.
I have always heard about prostitutes struggles for healthcare, etc, but that also is something many other women and men are not getting in this society. Yes, I'm sure your work is dangerous to your safety. Men can be like that. You may experience more of that, because of your job, but many women have also experienced violence, at the hands of stronger men or men who control them.
I don't see that the ones doing work that is criminalized are the more vulnerable. It's because it is sex work, and men who find themselves in need of sex, or wanting to punish someone for what some other woman has done to them will seek out the most vulnerable - the one isolated, or lacking money, homeless, or without a man in her life.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 7:24pm.
the men who purchase sex are not "bad men" nor are all men prone to violence....this seems like you are unwilling to step outside of your comfort zone and actually look up the facts.
why can't men be vulnerable? why do we as a society assume all men are only out for themselves and self gratification? a man whose penis has been amputated to prevent the spread of cancer is vulnerable and in need of care. he is not a "bad" person nor is his lonliess "bad behaviour". he is suffering. why does he not deserve to be comforted and if a sex worker chooses to do so, why should she not comfort him? how is this "bad"?
can you imagine if suddenly being a nurse was illegal? how easy would it be for nurses to work if they were deemed criminals? or how about milk? what if milk was sudeenly illegal and milk producers had to operate in dark isolated areas risking their lives to sell their wares?
i mean criminalizing alcohol didn't "harm" anyone did it? or criminalizing drugs? or abortion? how can you be so blind to the impacts of being deemed criminal and the impact of being the victim of police violence during raids?
you have created a seperate set of rules for sex workers. that is discrimination and is illegal under the international charter of human rights.
please at least have the respect enough if not for us but yourself to actually read up on this a bit and discover perhaps where you may have yourself discriminated against sex workers and ways in which you could better embrace government of canada policies governing research and understand which "facts ' you are being mislead with.
those rules are in place for a reason... to inform canadians about the ethics and reliability of the research findings they are considering. try to understnad from our perspective, being a criminal is a huge barrier as is a criminal record. how is arresting women helping them?
these laws are completely ineffective, its time to protect people not punish them and to try something new.
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 9:56pm.
But we were talking about the men who made your life less secure - the ones who commit acts of violence? I know from doing research on sexual harassment that not all men who do this are nasty men either - many are husbands and fathers and otherwise good, hardworking, intelligent men.
Oh right - nurses. This entire issue has nothing to sex, is that what you're saying. However, speaking of nurses, read Dutch man sees it his right to have nurses serve his sexual needs: http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/03/dutch-man-sees-it-his-right-to-have.html ... . I hope you see my point of view.
I do realize that prostitutes are hard done by. So are people in the lower classes picked on more than they deserve. After all, it isn't ALL sex workers who get arrested, is it. eg Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the prostitutes he was involved with. He was so important he didn't even have to admit they were. But sex work is still not the same as being a cashier, much as you would like the Human Rights Commission to say it is. It's pointless for me to simply repeat what I've already said, but that's about it - selling sexual intercourse is not the same as any other job.
No discrimination doesn't apply in the case of prostitution because it's about sex. It's a sensitive topic and we simply cannot have an act of sex for money made legal because of the implications this would have for society. Don't worry about the criminal record. Everyone knows it's unfair and if it's used against you it's because they don't like the colour of your hair or your views on football. Perhaps some lawkeepers want to punish you - just as some of your clients do. But working within the law, if it were changed, won't keep you much safer. The men who would have abused you will have to find other ways of dealing with their frustrations; instead, going after other vulnerable and isolated women. Decriminalizing prostitution isn't going to make the abusive men go away completely. It might make you into an ordinary citizen, just like everyone else, but that won't keep you safe.
Susan, what I can do, with your permission, is publish this discussion we've had on my blog, including a link to the original article on rabble.ca by Joyce Arthur. It's another outlet for people to read your views, and mine.
susan davis on March 5, 2012 - 10:26am.
won't make it "much safer"....based on what research or other countries expeireinces? it will make it safer and the sex workers used by dominque strauss-kahn are not immune. in the US, i watched on "sex slaves in detriot" last night, they arrest women to "rescue" girls. i also commincate with US workers through the social justice work i do...they arrested 100 women in 1 episode, showed their faced, filmed them naked, broadcast it on television....total humiliation, in my opinion it's violence when police to these kinds of degrading things. they were all indoor workers in highend hotels. the sting was police in the hotel baiting the workers. in the end the had "leads" on 3 pimps and 5 "girls" no arrests in that area but had comprimised the safety, confidentiality and dignity of over 100 women.... arresting them all in the name of "rescue".
just becuase you don't hear about sex workers being charged doesn't mean it doesn't happen. thst show was on back to back to back last night....how many women were comprimised throughout the 3 episodes...?
and sure, if you would like to repost this to your blog, i am good with that.
(continued at http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts )
Any changes to prostitution laws not coming soon
By Sam Pazzano
Toronto Sun
June 19, 2011
Ottawa Sun
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/19/any-changes-to-prostitution-lawsnot-coming-soon
How prostitution abolitionists substitute ideologies for facts
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
March 2, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts
The mistaken logic of 'asymmetrical criminalization' -- aka the Nordic model of prostitution
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
February 3, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/crazy-logic-asymmetrical-criminalization-aka-nordic-model-prostitution
Ontario Appeal Court decriminalizes brothels (article added Sept 2012)
CTVNews.ca Staff
Mar 26, 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120326/appeal-court-decision-canada-sex-trade-laws-120326/
Prostitution ‘not a constitutionally-protected right,’ Crown argues in landmark case
By Kirk Makin
Globe and Mail
June 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prostitution-not-a-constitutionally-protected-right-crown-argues-in-landmark-case/article2058348/
Who does decriminalization leave out?
By Meghan Murphy
The F Word, and Feminist Current
Jan 30, 2012
http://www.feminisms.org/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/
http://feministcurrent.com/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/
5 February 2012
Feminism's legacy: contributing towards social inequality
updated Sept 9, 2012
While feminism has changed the lives for many women in a positive way, it has left many other women, as well as men, in not such happy or positive circumstances. One legacy of feminism is the dual career, dual income family, a way of life that benefits only a certain segment of society. This also raises the feminist notion of 'having it all,' a phrase that refers to women having the 'choice' (a favourite word among those who have benefited from feminism and take it for granted), of having both a career and family if they wish, with the money and security to ensure they can live 'the good life'.
The way relationships come together has changed, enough to say here about modern values smply that professional men and women are more likely to join forces, than the earlier ideals of coupledom. In previous eras, a professional man might team up with a non-working woman, possibly educated, perhaps not, but providing him with a good woman to care for the family and look after his home, while also being able to entertain him and his business associates with her grace and wit. Most of us have seen ‘Mad Men’ on tv. In today’s world, however, that scenario is usually very different.
Having it all
‘Having it all’ could not possibly be the bliss implied by the term (see Have it All? Yeah, right!, 2012). Women enter the public sphere alongside men in the hopes of being as free as men seemed to be, to have the power, status and prestige, and the money to keep them safe and secure in this world. But most have to make hard choices about motherhood and work, and struggle to maintain the power they have achieved, at work and in the political arena.
One thing that does come fairly easily for many, however, is how they choose a mate. It looks as though many choose the best they can find, among their associates, friends, and family connections, and perhaps the internet. That may seem obvious, except that today’s world is different than it used to be, prefeminism. Instead of finding a mate and settling down to work part-time or not at all, in the traditional fashion, a woman may well be seeking the best she can while keeping in mind her career goals. That’s to be expected. But if the practice becomes a cultural norm, whereby women who do this become successful, then insist on women they mentor becoming like them, the result could be the closing of ranks on anyone who is different.
Gold diggers
That brings us to the meaning of the term ‘gold digger,’ another phrase that used to have a certain meaning, directed towards non-working women. Among the defintions of gold digger, see these that give no indication that the working status of the woman counts: ‘a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain’ (Reference Dictionary), and ‘a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich’ (Macmillan Dictionary). These definitions suggest that it is not women who marry wealthy men for their money only who are gold diggers. The resources the relationship offers is also important. See also Keli Goff’s piece on Justin Bieber, gold diggers, and feminism, and the blog that I wrote in response.
All in all, it’s a matter of perspective, attitudes, and definitions. Traditionally, women married men who became the breadwinners, while they raised a family. We wouldn't call them gold diggers. But society has changed. Due to feminism, or even though we have feminism, more than ever, women will still seek out the best male they can, and not to be supported and spend their money. It’s the career they’re after, and security in a world filled with insecurity.
Under what circumstances is it fair to apply the term ‘gold digger’ to women who seek wealthy men to marry. The money is what is important to gold diggers, although raising children and keeping a home, or having a career oneself seems to make the term nonapplicable. Perhaps the term is a bit harsh for women who only want what’s best for their family and themselves – or a career. But taking the label out of context or applying it to some situations but not others, and not including the effect it has on the rest of society, may be unconscionable.
Today's world is different. Instead of growing up with specific rules of behaviour, it seems that anything goes. If women act as though they have no fear - of limitations or doing the wrong thing - it's because they have been told for so long they are exceptional people (and that anything that comes out of their mouths is right). Just as it did for men, 50 years ago, the world revolves around them – some of them, depending on social and family background for starters.
When my Dr puts on my referral for a pulmonary test that I "fear cancer', she is not only making a value judgement about me but is placing me squarely within a generation that feared the big C, that couldn't cope with life or death, and that preferred to block out negativity rather than deal with it. And now I have to try to get a specialist to treat me seriously, not as a non-contributing citizen with no reason to make helping me worthwhile.
Social Inequality
Feminism has enabled some women to join the ranks of the well-employed and fulfilled, but left out far too many. Similarities in education between men and women aren't the main marrying point, it seems. Wealth is, or other indicators, as mentioned. Too many educated people are unemployed or underemployed, lacking the relationships or whatever it takes to get on the path to success or fulfilment and wellbeing.
In my blog (see ‘Occupy Movement,’ Dec 10, 2011), I have written about how the Occupiers have been encouraged to blame the top 1% for the world’s economic problems, while those in the top 30% or so must surely be enjoying economic security, well-established in their career, married also to professionals in many cases, living a life of entitlement while denying the real circumstances of those farther down the ladder. As I said there, “Many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.” Bernie Hammond (‘Don’t shrug off,’ 2011), may be right after all. In order to understand the lives of the poor we do need to study the structure of society, especially how the wealthy got where they did. I hope this piece I am writing will contribute towards that.
A commenter on a piece in the Huffington Post recently made me aware of a term I was unfamiliar with - hypergamy, meaning ‘marrying up’ – while explaining that “hypergamy as a theory has been all but debunked and is not taken seriously.” Yet I found an article about this in Time magazine (The truth about women, 2009), though not naming it hypergamy, stating that this subject – of women, money, and relationships, is taboo.
Traditional femininity
There's something going on behind this view that 'women can have it all.' And I think it might be this that distorts the significance of the phrase and leads to inequality and discord in society. Even though women are told they can have the career, the husband and the kids, there are still aspects of traditional femininity they don't manage to lose. And I'm not talking about being sexy or feminine. That’s just part of how many women are. What many of them might be unable to do, or don't want to, is marry a man with less then themselves and in this way, not only help him to achieve fulfilment and thus success, in this way, but on a larger scale contribute towards lessening social inequality and achieving a more balanced society.
If men and women with money and great careers wouldn’t be so reluctant to form intimate partnerships with those with less money but similar interests and personalities, then the result could be a more blanced society. Otherwise, what we have is the rich marrying the rich and the rest left to struggle.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this piece, I wrote that feminism had changed the world, and not always for the best. In my own life, not knowing anything about feminism until I was approaching midlife, I only knew earlier on that one married someone one felt close to, for whatever reason, and that money or potential had little or nothing to do with it. It was just something women did. In the 17 interviews with women that I did, several told me that they never gave marriage much thought before jumping into it. The interviews were intended to be for a PhD (see ‘Intimacy and Sexuality, 2009), but the university couldn’t/didn’t fund me and I was pushed out. That must have been at about the same time that my ex-husband was pushing for divorce, and I was pressured into signing off on any further claims, despite my situation being so insecure. I guess he wanted to secure his situation and find a new wife, his sister having fortunately been a good-size lottery winner a few years earlier. I was still naive enough to believe in a just world, and my financial situation was so complex, being part of both the UK and Canada, it seemed the best decision (uninformed) at the time. Naïve, yes, in a different world. But no worse, in its own way, than the world today.
Instead of women being suppressed and oppressed, now it’s both men and women who are being pushed down the economic ladder, due to their luck running out, or talents going unnoticed, or not having the money to get an education, or not having the talent or knowledge, or enough ability. Not all the oppressed are the same, just as not all of the well-off are.
Social inequality refers, to a large extent, to people without money being treated as lesser human beings, in so many ways – health care, housing, education, job-seeking, and practically any way you can think of, including not being given credit for contributions they make to their community or society in general. Feminism hasn’t helped in changing that. In fact, feminism has probably made it worse, as women seek power and security in their lives.
Added Sept 9, 2012
Another aspect of feminism and its legacy is the hiring of spouses within the same university While it may be seen as beneficial to the university (see Universities see benefits, Feb 16, 2010) I can’t see that using the excuse of ‘diversity’ to uphold the policy of hiring of academic couples makes any sense at all. Rather, hiring couples simply promotes the idea of coupledom, already an established mainstream norm. According to Professors Anabel Quan-Haase and J. Bruce Morton, the reason for such hiring is "an improved understanding of the needs of women and families." But dual-income academic families aren’t helping society adapt to a poor economy, and the problem of some men and women excluded and unable to find work, or left without meaningful work. Two salaries two health plans, two sets of pension benefits when the time comes – while others struggles. This is the legacy of feminism.
Before I realized that feminism was the fundamental cause of this social inequality I had already written a piece about the hiring of spouses at universities (see The two-career family, Feb 18, 2010). If universities continue to close ranks against unattached individuals with no powerful social network, and if feminists – or women academics – use their relationships with men to secure their own future with no consideration for others, how is this helping the ordinary person, including the unattached ones and the educated ones who wish to pursue a career within academia?
List of sources, by title
Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html
Gold digger: Informal definition
- a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain
Reference dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gold+digger
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Gold digger: definition
- a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich
Macmillan Dictionary
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/gold-digger -
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Have it all? Yeah, right!
By Barbara and Shannon Kelley
Jan 27, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-kelley/have-it-all_b_1225945.html
‘Intimacy and Sexuality: single-again older women’
Summary of proposed PhD thesis topic
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/IntimacySexualityOlderWomen.doc
Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
By Sue (Fulham) McPherson
Western News
Dec 10, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-movement-uwos-klatt-and-hammond.html
The Truth About Women, Money and Relationships
By Andrea Sachs
Time magazine
Jan. 07, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870066,00.html
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
The two-career family - profs in the ivory tower (added Sept, 2012)
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Feb 18, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/02/two-career-family-profs-in-ivory-tower.html
Universities see benefits to hiring spouses as profs (added Sept, 2012)
By Misty Harris, Canwest News Service
Montreal Gazette
Feb 16, 2010
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Universities+benefits+hiring+spouses+profs/2571425/story.html
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
by Keli Goff
Huffington Post - Culture
Nov 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/what-justin-bieber-and-go_b_1094032.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111511&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
Nov 19, 2011
Sue’s Views on the News
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-justin-bieber-and-feminism-can.html
While feminism has changed the lives for many women in a positive way, it has left many other women, as well as men, in not such happy or positive circumstances. One legacy of feminism is the dual career, dual income family, a way of life that benefits only a certain segment of society. This also raises the feminist notion of 'having it all,' a phrase that refers to women having the 'choice' (a favourite word among those who have benefited from feminism and take it for granted), of having both a career and family if they wish, with the money and security to ensure they can live 'the good life'.
The way relationships come together has changed, enough to say here about modern values smply that professional men and women are more likely to join forces, than the earlier ideals of coupledom. In previous eras, a professional man might team up with a non-working woman, possibly educated, perhaps not, but providing him with a good woman to care for the family and look after his home, while also being able to entertain him and his business associates with her grace and wit. Most of us have seen ‘Mad Men’ on tv. In today’s world, however, that scenario is usually very different.
Having it all
‘Having it all’ could not possibly be the bliss implied by the term (see Have it All? Yeah, right!, 2012). Women enter the public sphere alongside men in the hopes of being as free as men seemed to be, to have the power, status and prestige, and the money to keep them safe and secure in this world. But most have to make hard choices about motherhood and work, and struggle to maintain the power they have achieved, at work and in the political arena.
One thing that does come fairly easily for many, however, is how they choose a mate. It looks as though many choose the best they can find, among their associates, friends, and family connections, and perhaps the internet. That may seem obvious, except that today’s world is different than it used to be, prefeminism. Instead of finding a mate and settling down to work part-time or not at all, in the traditional fashion, a woman may well be seeking the best she can while keeping in mind her career goals. That’s to be expected. But if the practice becomes a cultural norm, whereby women who do this become successful, then insist on women they mentor becoming like them, the result could be the closing of ranks on anyone who is different.
Gold diggers
That brings us to the meaning of the term ‘gold digger,’ another phrase that used to have a certain meaning, directed towards non-working women. Among the defintions of gold digger, see these that give no indication that the working status of the woman counts: ‘a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain’ (Reference Dictionary), and ‘a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich’ (Macmillan Dictionary). These definitions suggest that it is not women who marry wealthy men for their money only who are gold diggers. The resources the relationship offers is also important. See also Keli Goff’s piece on Justin Bieber, gold diggers, and feminism, and the blog that I wrote in response.
All in all, it’s a matter of perspective, attitudes, and definitions. Traditionally, women married men who became the breadwinners, while they raised a family. We wouldn't call them gold diggers. But society has changed. Due to feminism, or even though we have feminism, more than ever, women will still seek out the best male they can, and not to be supported and spend their money. It’s the career they’re after, and security in a world filled with insecurity.
Under what circumstances is it fair to apply the term ‘gold digger’ to women who seek wealthy men to marry. The money is what is important to gold diggers, although raising children and keeping a home, or having a career oneself seems to make the term nonapplicable. Perhaps the term is a bit harsh for women who only want what’s best for their family and themselves – or a career. But taking the label out of context or applying it to some situations but not others, and not including the effect it has on the rest of society, may be unconscionable.
Today's world is different. Instead of growing up with specific rules of behaviour, it seems that anything goes. If women act as though they have no fear - of limitations or doing the wrong thing - it's because they have been told for so long they are exceptional people (and that anything that comes out of their mouths is right). Just as it did for men, 50 years ago, the world revolves around them – some of them, depending on social and family background for starters.
When my Dr puts on my referral for a pulmonary test that I "fear cancer', she is not only making a value judgement about me but is placing me squarely within a generation that feared the big C, that couldn't cope with life or death, and that preferred to block out negativity rather than deal with it. And now I have to try to get a specialist to treat me seriously, not as a non-contributing citizen with no reason to make helping me worthwhile.
Social Inequality
Feminism has enabled some women to join the ranks of the well-employed and fulfilled, but left out far too many. Similarities in education between men and women aren't the main marrying point, it seems. Wealth is, or other indicators, as mentioned. Too many educated people are unemployed or underemployed, lacking the relationships or whatever it takes to get on the path to success or fulfilment and wellbeing.
In my blog (see ‘Occupy Movement,’ Dec 10, 2011), I have written about how the Occupiers have been encouraged to blame the top 1% for the world’s economic problems, while those in the top 30% or so must surely be enjoying economic security, well-established in their career, married also to professionals in many cases, living a life of entitlement while denying the real circumstances of those farther down the ladder. As I said there, “Many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.” Bernie Hammond (‘Don’t shrug off,’ 2011), may be right after all. In order to understand the lives of the poor we do need to study the structure of society, especially how the wealthy got where they did. I hope this piece I am writing will contribute towards that.
A commenter on a piece in the Huffington Post recently made me aware of a term I was unfamiliar with - hypergamy, meaning ‘marrying up’ – while explaining that “hypergamy as a theory has been all but debunked and is not taken seriously.” Yet I found an article about this in Time magazine (The truth about women, 2009), though not naming it hypergamy, stating that this subject – of women, money, and relationships, is taboo.
Traditional femininity
There's something going on behind this view that 'women can have it all.' And I think it might be this that distorts the significance of the phrase and leads to inequality and discord in society. Even though women are told they can have the career, the husband and the kids, there are still aspects of traditional femininity they don't manage to lose. And I'm not talking about being sexy or feminine. That’s just part of how many women are. What many of them might be unable to do, or don't want to, is marry a man with less then themselves and in this way, not only help him to achieve fulfilment and thus success, in this way, but on a larger scale contribute towards lessening social inequality and achieving a more balanced society.
If men and women with money and great careers wouldn’t be so reluctant to form intimate partnerships with those with less money but similar interests and personalities, then the result could be a more blanced society. Otherwise, what we have is the rich marrying the rich and the rest left to struggle.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this piece, I wrote that feminism had changed the world, and not always for the best. In my own life, not knowing anything about feminism until I was approaching midlife, I only knew earlier on that one married someone one felt close to, for whatever reason, and that money or potential had little or nothing to do with it. It was just something women did. In the 17 interviews with women that I did, several told me that they never gave marriage much thought before jumping into it. The interviews were intended to be for a PhD (see ‘Intimacy and Sexuality, 2009), but the university couldn’t/didn’t fund me and I was pushed out. That must have been at about the same time that my ex-husband was pushing for divorce, and I was pressured into signing off on any further claims, despite my situation being so insecure. I guess he wanted to secure his situation and find a new wife, his sister having fortunately been a good-size lottery winner a few years earlier. I was still naive enough to believe in a just world, and my financial situation was so complex, being part of both the UK and Canada, it seemed the best decision (uninformed) at the time. Naïve, yes, in a different world. But no worse, in its own way, than the world today.
Instead of women being suppressed and oppressed, now it’s both men and women who are being pushed down the economic ladder, due to their luck running out, or talents going unnoticed, or not having the money to get an education, or not having the talent or knowledge, or enough ability. Not all the oppressed are the same, just as not all of the well-off are.
Social inequality refers, to a large extent, to people without money being treated as lesser human beings, in so many ways – health care, housing, education, job-seeking, and practically any way you can think of, including not being given credit for contributions they make to their community or society in general. Feminism hasn’t helped in changing that. In fact, feminism has probably made it worse, as women seek power and security in their lives.
Added Sept 9, 2012
Another aspect of feminism and its legacy is the hiring of spouses within the same university While it may be seen as beneficial to the university (see Universities see benefits, Feb 16, 2010) I can’t see that using the excuse of ‘diversity’ to uphold the policy of hiring of academic couples makes any sense at all. Rather, hiring couples simply promotes the idea of coupledom, already an established mainstream norm. According to Professors Anabel Quan-Haase and J. Bruce Morton, the reason for such hiring is "an improved understanding of the needs of women and families." But dual-income academic families aren’t helping society adapt to a poor economy, and the problem of some men and women excluded and unable to find work, or left without meaningful work. Two salaries two health plans, two sets of pension benefits when the time comes – while others struggles. This is the legacy of feminism.
Before I realized that feminism was the fundamental cause of this social inequality I had already written a piece about the hiring of spouses at universities (see The two-career family, Feb 18, 2010). If universities continue to close ranks against unattached individuals with no powerful social network, and if feminists – or women academics – use their relationships with men to secure their own future with no consideration for others, how is this helping the ordinary person, including the unattached ones and the educated ones who wish to pursue a career within academia?
List of sources, by title
Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html
Gold digger: Informal definition
- a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain
Reference dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gold+digger
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Gold digger: definition
- a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich
Macmillan Dictionary
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/gold-digger -
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Have it all? Yeah, right!
By Barbara and Shannon Kelley
Jan 27, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-kelley/have-it-all_b_1225945.html
‘Intimacy and Sexuality: single-again older women’
Summary of proposed PhD thesis topic
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/IntimacySexualityOlderWomen.doc
Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
By Sue (Fulham) McPherson
Western News
Dec 10, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-movement-uwos-klatt-and-hammond.html
The Truth About Women, Money and Relationships
By Andrea Sachs
Time magazine
Jan. 07, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870066,00.html
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
The two-career family - profs in the ivory tower (added Sept, 2012)
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Feb 18, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/02/two-career-family-profs-in-ivory-tower.html
Universities see benefits to hiring spouses as profs (added Sept, 2012)
By Misty Harris, Canwest News Service
Montreal Gazette
Feb 16, 2010
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Universities+benefits+hiring+spouses+profs/2571425/story.html
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
by Keli Goff
Huffington Post - Culture
Nov 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/what-justin-bieber-and-go_b_1094032.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111511&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
Nov 19, 2011
Sue’s Views on the News
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-justin-bieber-and-feminism-can.html
7 November 2011
Widest-ever wealth gap between young and old in the US
This very one-sided article has appeared in numerous newspapers' websites today. It places blame for economic disparity between the young and the old strictly on the shoulders of the old, regardless of income, home ownership, marital status, or work history.
One reason the economic division between young and old can be seen as increasing over the last 30 to 50 years is the effect of feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce - changing norms, in other words.
Whereas 50 years ago a wealthy man might have a wife who stayed home and did charity work, now, older men are sought out by women for what they have to offer - in the firm, or as an influential, hidden, character reference for other careers. Thus the household with the head at age 65 plus might have a 45year old wife with high earning power in today's world.
I am not surprised that whoever wrote this piece didn't want to include this probable effect. It's not something the middle class really wants to deal with. And as women continue to marry men with the best resources, how can we ever expect the situation to get better. One of the side effects of feminism. What's that called again - oh, collateral damage.
Another problem with this article - something omitted - is that many old people, particularly older women, live in poverty. They may not be in debt, and so would not be included in the 8% mentioned in the last sentence. But despite receiving old age benefits, many will be struggling to get by.
So often we see articles and blogs that onlty serve to create more antagonism between the generations. Would I be right in assuming that the author of this piece is under 40, and female, and has her own agenda?
One other issue is the comment made by Harry Holzer, labor economist and public policy prof at Georgetown University, who is quoted as saying "It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them." Apparently he called magnitude of the wealth gap "striking."
Note that he, like the other 'experts' mentioned in this piece, places the blame on old people in general, when it is obvious that the ones who will lose out if money allocated for healthcare is taken away are those with limited resources. It will be the ones without private medical insurance who will have to try to make do with even less proper healthcare.
I don't know if we can assume that the situation is the same in Canada., regarding health care matters and more importantly, the gap between the old and the young, but knowing the effects that feminism has caused in Canada, it sounds as though it could be the same here as in the US.
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Huffington Post Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
U.S. wealth gap between young and old is widest ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
USA Today
Nov 8, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1
Links updated July, 2012
One reason the economic division between young and old can be seen as increasing over the last 30 to 50 years is the effect of feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce - changing norms, in other words.
Whereas 50 years ago a wealthy man might have a wife who stayed home and did charity work, now, older men are sought out by women for what they have to offer - in the firm, or as an influential, hidden, character reference for other careers. Thus the household with the head at age 65 plus might have a 45year old wife with high earning power in today's world.
I am not surprised that whoever wrote this piece didn't want to include this probable effect. It's not something the middle class really wants to deal with. And as women continue to marry men with the best resources, how can we ever expect the situation to get better. One of the side effects of feminism. What's that called again - oh, collateral damage.
Another problem with this article - something omitted - is that many old people, particularly older women, live in poverty. They may not be in debt, and so would not be included in the 8% mentioned in the last sentence. But despite receiving old age benefits, many will be struggling to get by.
So often we see articles and blogs that onlty serve to create more antagonism between the generations. Would I be right in assuming that the author of this piece is under 40, and female, and has her own agenda?
One other issue is the comment made by Harry Holzer, labor economist and public policy prof at Georgetown University, who is quoted as saying "It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them." Apparently he called magnitude of the wealth gap "striking."
Note that he, like the other 'experts' mentioned in this piece, places the blame on old people in general, when it is obvious that the ones who will lose out if money allocated for healthcare is taken away are those with limited resources. It will be the ones without private medical insurance who will have to try to make do with even less proper healthcare.
I don't know if we can assume that the situation is the same in Canada., regarding health care matters and more importantly, the gap between the old and the young, but knowing the effects that feminism has caused in Canada, it sounds as though it could be the same here as in the US.
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Huffington Post Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
U.S. wealth gap between young and old is widest ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
USA Today
Nov 8, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1
Links updated July, 2012
2 November 2011
Gender, sex and aging: What do we owe our spouses?
A trio of stories on the Huffington Post drew my interest recently, all related matters, to do with gender, sex, and aging. Sex was the drawing card in D A Wolf's 'Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?', and is an inviting resource for anyone wanting to know what other readers think about sex between two people in a relationship. The comments section attracted an enthusiastic crowd, each one either telling their own personal story, or making one up, or simply letting everyone know what they thought about the subject of Wolf's piece.
But in the next piece on sex, the attitude of readers/commenters changed considerably. This one was about sex among the baby boomers, and for that reason, it appears, became the target of jokes and ridicule. Could it be that the approach was wrong, and not simply that older citizens are the target of jokes in this ageist society of ours? In an attempt to persuade the world that baby boomers can have sex just like anyone else, and enjoy it, the writers, whoever they were, may have been just a bit on the defensive. What formed the basis of the piece were myths that were then dispelled by the writers' claims. We don't hear who the writers were, and the format of the piece was awkward to read, being fairly short but, including the comments section, split up over 7 pages.
As with the first piece on the subject of sex, this second piece was also clearly about people within the state of coupledom. Those without partners had no real need to peruse the pieces, let alone comment on them, unless they still had hope, or at least intentions, to become half of a couple sometime in the future. This was my main objection to both these pieces, that single men and women were left out or left hanging on the margins, although in the 'ageless' couples and sex article, at least that was a topic many of us knew something about from previous experience. It doesn't seem to even occur to the writers of the boomers' sex piece that most older people aren't going to have casual sex, just for the fun of it (despite what the quoted lavalifePRIME says).
The final point about these two stories is that, as usual with such stories, there is little or no analysis of the society in which it all takes place. We all take for granted that we live in western society and that both men and women have certain freedoms, but there are still the remnants of traditional marriage present in our ways of thinking, as well as the modern ways of looking at our experiences through the eyes of feminism. Thus, women are seen (and speak) from both the perspective of not being equal with men in ways of dealing with sexual matters, as well as at times acting like men and taking on men's ways of dealing with sexual matters.
And that leads us to the last of the stories, also about the older generation, about women in particular. Once again, this piece incorporates aspects of old-fashioned tradition, of a woman being a homemaker, but about doing so after having had a fulfilling career. I think one aim of it was truly to justify and uphold the legitimate choice of women to be homemakers, but quite a number of readers comments were negative about the choices available to the writer, and particularly about the perceived uselessness of her choice, to stay home. At this point in our society, in which the economy has still not rebounded, if some women express the desire to remain at home to be homemakers and/or raise children, it doesn't help to treat them like pariahs. Just as some homemakers may not take their work seriously, or do a good job, so are there women in the workforce who aren't conscientious, or doing their work to the best of their ability. It isn't work per se that makes one person better than another. It isn't the paycheque that a person brings home, or the taxes they pay, that makes them better than someone else. It might lead them to be seen as different, to be living a lifestyle that's not the norm, in this society where occupation and financial resources are the determinants of a person's identity and worth. It's much easier to do after having a career, than rely on an ex to provide a reference, but it's still good to hear about women living this way, so that society does not forget how things were done in the past.
Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?
by D A Wolf
Huffington Post Divorce
Oct 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-a-wolf/do-we-owe-our-spouses-sex_b_927484.html?ref=love--sex
Most Common Sex Myths About Baby Boomers
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 29, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/the-most-common-sex-myths_n_1057479.html
Words With Friends and Back to Home-Ec
by Jamie Lee Curtis
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-lee-curtis/50s-housewives-home-ec-_b_1006209.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101211&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
But in the next piece on sex, the attitude of readers/commenters changed considerably. This one was about sex among the baby boomers, and for that reason, it appears, became the target of jokes and ridicule. Could it be that the approach was wrong, and not simply that older citizens are the target of jokes in this ageist society of ours? In an attempt to persuade the world that baby boomers can have sex just like anyone else, and enjoy it, the writers, whoever they were, may have been just a bit on the defensive. What formed the basis of the piece were myths that were then dispelled by the writers' claims. We don't hear who the writers were, and the format of the piece was awkward to read, being fairly short but, including the comments section, split up over 7 pages.
As with the first piece on the subject of sex, this second piece was also clearly about people within the state of coupledom. Those without partners had no real need to peruse the pieces, let alone comment on them, unless they still had hope, or at least intentions, to become half of a couple sometime in the future. This was my main objection to both these pieces, that single men and women were left out or left hanging on the margins, although in the 'ageless' couples and sex article, at least that was a topic many of us knew something about from previous experience. It doesn't seem to even occur to the writers of the boomers' sex piece that most older people aren't going to have casual sex, just for the fun of it (despite what the quoted lavalifePRIME says).
The final point about these two stories is that, as usual with such stories, there is little or no analysis of the society in which it all takes place. We all take for granted that we live in western society and that both men and women have certain freedoms, but there are still the remnants of traditional marriage present in our ways of thinking, as well as the modern ways of looking at our experiences through the eyes of feminism. Thus, women are seen (and speak) from both the perspective of not being equal with men in ways of dealing with sexual matters, as well as at times acting like men and taking on men's ways of dealing with sexual matters.
And that leads us to the last of the stories, also about the older generation, about women in particular. Once again, this piece incorporates aspects of old-fashioned tradition, of a woman being a homemaker, but about doing so after having had a fulfilling career. I think one aim of it was truly to justify and uphold the legitimate choice of women to be homemakers, but quite a number of readers comments were negative about the choices available to the writer, and particularly about the perceived uselessness of her choice, to stay home. At this point in our society, in which the economy has still not rebounded, if some women express the desire to remain at home to be homemakers and/or raise children, it doesn't help to treat them like pariahs. Just as some homemakers may not take their work seriously, or do a good job, so are there women in the workforce who aren't conscientious, or doing their work to the best of their ability. It isn't work per se that makes one person better than another. It isn't the paycheque that a person brings home, or the taxes they pay, that makes them better than someone else. It might lead them to be seen as different, to be living a lifestyle that's not the norm, in this society where occupation and financial resources are the determinants of a person's identity and worth. It's much easier to do after having a career, than rely on an ex to provide a reference, but it's still good to hear about women living this way, so that society does not forget how things were done in the past.
Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?
by D A Wolf
Huffington Post Divorce
Oct 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-a-wolf/do-we-owe-our-spouses-sex_b_927484.html?ref=love--sex
Most Common Sex Myths About Baby Boomers
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 29, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/the-most-common-sex-myths_n_1057479.html
Words With Friends and Back to Home-Ec
by Jamie Lee Curtis
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-lee-curtis/50s-housewives-home-ec-_b_1006209.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101211&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
8 April 2011
The London Slut Walk - The 'S' word should be SEX, not slut
I was just about to post a comment this evening on an article in the London Free Press (Walker objects, Apr 8) when comments were cut off, after only 4 had been posted - all by men. The article was not the first on the local response to the apparent remark by a Toronto cop addressing law students, that 'women should avoid dressing like “sluts” if they didn’t want to be victimized' (What starts with an ‘s’, April 8, LFP).
Following is my comment, mainly in response to comments made by others.
I'm not sure if Jeff is trying to say there should be a Slut Walk? (Megan Walker doesn't like the idea, and Jeff doesn't approve of her kind of activism, he says, so I gather he's all for the Walk by that name). Are you sure you won't be tempted to refer to the marchers as Sluts, Jeff?
There must be a better way to handle this situation.
Mick, the word slut has different connotations according to gender. Men have always been allowed to be proud of their sexual exploits. Not so with women. Most keep quiet about them so they won't be judged.
That's all I wrote. And my response to the other article today by Kelly Pedro is also lacking, in part due to word limits placed on contributions. I would have liked to have added that the s word in question should probably not be 'slut' at all but rather, 'sex'. Focusing on the word slut is distorting the problem, taking the emphasis off a topic that really needs to be discussed, as demonstrated by the lack of understanding by more than one commenter.
It's too bad the comment made by one commenter got deleted. It illustrated some of the attitudes that need to be addressed, instead of women simply demanding their rights to dress provocatively without considering negative consequences. Removing the derogatory comments, what remains of his comment is this:
"Now if I pin money to my shirt,walk late at night and get mugged, can the 'it shouldn't be the way I dress' excuse work too??????"
Nowhere has it been mentioned that women's behaviour is also part of the problem. Being sexually provocative might also result in unwanted attention, just as their attire might. When it comes to sexual violence, it's not always the clothing that matters. If a woman appears vulnerable, or available, she might be more likely to be seen as a target.
One issue I have concern with, regarding the Value Women campaign initiated by Megan Walker, is that it's not inclusive of the idea of 'slut,' or at least of the idea that women are sexual (and may be seen as 'sluttish'). Pushing the problem away is not a solution, either, no more than the opposite, which appears to be that of embracing the notion of women as sluts, as in the Slut Walk.
When women dress in hot outfits, that is exactly what men are thinking of when they use the word 'slut'. And that's probably what the cop meant when he used it and got into trouble for doing so. The word is used so commonly that he obviously used it in the wrong manner, and definitely in the wrong place.
Men don't think like women in matters pertaining to sex. A woman can believe she has rights (as men do too, of course), but if they act as though no one can take away those rights, or that men 'shouldn't', by dressing as they have a right to, sexually provocatively, in the wrong place at the wrong time, they may be increase the chances of being noticed, and place themslves at risk. There is a difference between 'should' and 'what is', and women are being warned by the police that men don't always think or behave rationally when it comes to sex. and if men won't be considerate of women, in such circumstances, then women have to take precautions.
Feminists claim that men have always been in awe of women's sexuality and the power it has over them, so that's one reason why, in general, some men intentionally demean women by referring to them as sluts - putting them in their place, so to speak.
It probably makes some men angry just to see the attitudes of women participating in the Slut Walk. How does that help the problem of 'violence against women.' And how did the walk itself help educate the public about violence against women?
Campaign counters Slut Walk
By Kelly Pedro
London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/08/17922886.html
Slutwalk: "Because We've had Enough"
By Thomas Cermak
London Fuse
April 10, 2011
http://londonfuse.ca/images/slutwalk-because-weve-had-enough
Walker objects to women being called 'sluts'
By Kelly Pedro
The London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/07/17916251.html
What starts with an ‘s’ and divides women’s groups?
By Kelly Pedro
London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/07/17914086.html#/news/london/2011/04/07/pf-17916296.html
-----------------------------------------------
added May 19, 2011
Sex and the SlutWalk (with comments)
by Agenda intern Andrew Lynes
TVO - The Agenda
May 6, 2011
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&post_id=15290&blog_id=323
Following is my comment, mainly in response to comments made by others.
I'm not sure if Jeff is trying to say there should be a Slut Walk? (Megan Walker doesn't like the idea, and Jeff doesn't approve of her kind of activism, he says, so I gather he's all for the Walk by that name). Are you sure you won't be tempted to refer to the marchers as Sluts, Jeff?
There must be a better way to handle this situation.
Mick, the word slut has different connotations according to gender. Men have always been allowed to be proud of their sexual exploits. Not so with women. Most keep quiet about them so they won't be judged.
That's all I wrote. And my response to the other article today by Kelly Pedro is also lacking, in part due to word limits placed on contributions. I would have liked to have added that the s word in question should probably not be 'slut' at all but rather, 'sex'. Focusing on the word slut is distorting the problem, taking the emphasis off a topic that really needs to be discussed, as demonstrated by the lack of understanding by more than one commenter.
It's too bad the comment made by one commenter got deleted. It illustrated some of the attitudes that need to be addressed, instead of women simply demanding their rights to dress provocatively without considering negative consequences. Removing the derogatory comments, what remains of his comment is this:
"Now if I pin money to my shirt,walk late at night and get mugged, can the 'it shouldn't be the way I dress' excuse work too??????"
Nowhere has it been mentioned that women's behaviour is also part of the problem. Being sexually provocative might also result in unwanted attention, just as their attire might. When it comes to sexual violence, it's not always the clothing that matters. If a woman appears vulnerable, or available, she might be more likely to be seen as a target.
One issue I have concern with, regarding the Value Women campaign initiated by Megan Walker, is that it's not inclusive of the idea of 'slut,' or at least of the idea that women are sexual (and may be seen as 'sluttish'). Pushing the problem away is not a solution, either, no more than the opposite, which appears to be that of embracing the notion of women as sluts, as in the Slut Walk.
When women dress in hot outfits, that is exactly what men are thinking of when they use the word 'slut'. And that's probably what the cop meant when he used it and got into trouble for doing so. The word is used so commonly that he obviously used it in the wrong manner, and definitely in the wrong place.
Men don't think like women in matters pertaining to sex. A woman can believe she has rights (as men do too, of course), but if they act as though no one can take away those rights, or that men 'shouldn't', by dressing as they have a right to, sexually provocatively, in the wrong place at the wrong time, they may be increase the chances of being noticed, and place themslves at risk. There is a difference between 'should' and 'what is', and women are being warned by the police that men don't always think or behave rationally when it comes to sex. and if men won't be considerate of women, in such circumstances, then women have to take precautions.
Feminists claim that men have always been in awe of women's sexuality and the power it has over them, so that's one reason why, in general, some men intentionally demean women by referring to them as sluts - putting them in their place, so to speak.
It probably makes some men angry just to see the attitudes of women participating in the Slut Walk. How does that help the problem of 'violence against women.' And how did the walk itself help educate the public about violence against women?
Campaign counters Slut Walk
By Kelly Pedro
London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/08/17922886.html
Slutwalk: "Because We've had Enough"
By Thomas Cermak
London Fuse
April 10, 2011
http://londonfuse.ca/images/slutwalk-because-weve-had-enough
Walker objects to women being called 'sluts'
By Kelly Pedro
The London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/07/17916251.html
What starts with an ‘s’ and divides women’s groups?
By Kelly Pedro
London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/07/17914086.html#/news/london/2011/04/07/pf-17916296.html
-----------------------------------------------
added May 19, 2011
Sex and the SlutWalk (with comments)
by Agenda intern Andrew Lynes
TVO - The Agenda
May 6, 2011
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&post_id=15290&blog_id=323
13 August 2010
Cory McMullan: Belleville police chief victim of a violent incident
Belleville, Ontario, police Chief Cory McMullan suffered a broken arm in an incident one week ago. She says she was the victim of domestic violence, but it is likely that it was simply an 'incident,' using police terms, and not the kind of violence against women that so many women in society have to endure, due to powerlessness in their home circumstances. One has to wonder what her retired 53-year old husband has experienced himself, in this new kind of society where men are more likely to leave work early, while the wife continues the family career.
Mrs McMullan apparently stated that, "given her position in the community, 'it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim' " (Belleville police chief victim, CBC, Aug 11, 2010). But it may well have been that there were two victims in this case. It is hard to believe that the husband, retired police officer Dave McMullen, would use violence intentionally to try to control his police chief wife. If this was a situation of domestic violence, it wasn't the traditional kind that many wives experienced before they gained financial independence in their lives.
In my comment submitted to the CBC online article, at 8:53 am ET Aug 13, I wrote the following:
Eliza Doolittle writes, "I suggest we wait until the other side of the story is told before jumping to any conclusions."
The problem here is that her arm got broken, and in our society, that kind of violence is usually the deciding factor in any cases of abuse. Psychological, emotional, sexual, or economic abuse is less likely to be recognized, particularly as is applies to men being victimized. Our society has changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years, with women often working past the time when their husbands retire. We don't know the situation here, but we do know how difficult it can be for any man who retires at an early age. The woman, Cory McMullan, has apparently stated, "it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim." Like many women of today, and men of yesteryear, it may be difficult for her to see that there might be another side to the story.
END OF COMMENT
Belleville Police Chief speaks out as a domestic abuse victim
By Natalie Stechyson and Adrian Morrow, Toronto and Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-police-chief-speaks-out-as-a-domestic-abuse-victim/article1671473/
Belleville police chief victim of 'domestic incident'
The Canadian Press
CBC News
August 11, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/08/11/ot-belleville-chief.html
Belleville’s abuzz over police chief as victim of domestic violence
By Carola Vyhnak, Staff Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 12, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/846418--belleville-s-abuzz-over-police-chief-as-victim-of-domestic-violence
Domestic Violence’ narratives: the murders of Lois Mordue and Dave Lucio
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
June 9, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/06/domestic-violence-narratives-murders-of.html
Ontario police chief says she was victim of domestic abuse
By QMI Agency
canoe.ca
Aug 11, 2010
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/11/14989296.html
Public life, public victim
By Joseph Brean
Financial Post
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/Public+life+public+victim/3388045/story.html
no longer available through this link
Added Aug 24, 2010
Belleville Mayor denies affair with police chief
Carola Vyhnak, Urban Affairs Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 23 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/851519--belleville-mayor-denies-affair-with-police-chief?bn=1
Belleville mayor denies having affair with police chief
By W. Brice McVicar, QMI Agency
Peterborough Examiner
Aug 24, 2010
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2726196
Belleville mayor denies rumours of affair with police chief
By Adrian Morrow, Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-mayor-denies-rumours-of-affair-with-police-chief/article1682780/
available online through Globe&Mail
links updated April 11, 2012
Mrs McMullan apparently stated that, "given her position in the community, 'it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim' " (Belleville police chief victim, CBC, Aug 11, 2010). But it may well have been that there were two victims in this case. It is hard to believe that the husband, retired police officer Dave McMullen, would use violence intentionally to try to control his police chief wife. If this was a situation of domestic violence, it wasn't the traditional kind that many wives experienced before they gained financial independence in their lives.
In my comment submitted to the CBC online article, at 8:53 am ET Aug 13, I wrote the following:
Eliza Doolittle writes, "I suggest we wait until the other side of the story is told before jumping to any conclusions."
The problem here is that her arm got broken, and in our society, that kind of violence is usually the deciding factor in any cases of abuse. Psychological, emotional, sexual, or economic abuse is less likely to be recognized, particularly as is applies to men being victimized. Our society has changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years, with women often working past the time when their husbands retire. We don't know the situation here, but we do know how difficult it can be for any man who retires at an early age. The woman, Cory McMullan, has apparently stated, "it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim." Like many women of today, and men of yesteryear, it may be difficult for her to see that there might be another side to the story.
END OF COMMENT
Belleville Police Chief speaks out as a domestic abuse victim
By Natalie Stechyson and Adrian Morrow, Toronto and Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-police-chief-speaks-out-as-a-domestic-abuse-victim/article1671473/
Belleville police chief victim of 'domestic incident'
The Canadian Press
CBC News
August 11, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/08/11/ot-belleville-chief.html
Belleville’s abuzz over police chief as victim of domestic violence
By Carola Vyhnak, Staff Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 12, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/846418--belleville-s-abuzz-over-police-chief-as-victim-of-domestic-violence
Domestic Violence’ narratives: the murders of Lois Mordue and Dave Lucio
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
June 9, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/06/domestic-violence-narratives-murders-of.html
Ontario police chief says she was victim of domestic abuse
By QMI Agency
canoe.ca
Aug 11, 2010
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/11/14989296.html
Public life, public victim
By Joseph Brean
Financial Post
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/Public+life+public+victim/3388045/story.html
no longer available through this link
Added Aug 24, 2010
Belleville Mayor denies affair with police chief
Carola Vyhnak, Urban Affairs Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 23 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/851519--belleville-mayor-denies-affair-with-police-chief?bn=1
Belleville mayor denies having affair with police chief
By W. Brice McVicar, QMI Agency
Peterborough Examiner
Aug 24, 2010
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2726196
Belleville mayor denies rumours of affair with police chief
By Adrian Morrow, Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-mayor-denies-rumours-of-affair-with-police-chief/article1682780/
available online through Globe&Mail
links updated April 11, 2012
3 July 2010
Men's rights versus children's safety: BA deals with the possibility of perverts
BA Airline has been in a spot of trouble for its handling of a delicate social issue. My response here is mainly to the National Post article on the subject - 'You’re male. You must be a pervert,' by Barbara Kay.
I almost didn't respond to this in the section following the article, but I did, in response to another commenter, then got drawn into the topic of discussion - men's rights versus children's. I found the title to be unsettling - an exaggeration of a social problem men don't like to discuss.
I thought this was worthy of telling about here as it is an example of men who cannot see beyond their own needs and their own egos.
It was also an example of how women (one woman - Barbara Kay) can dismiss anyone else's concerns in order that her favourite cause - men's rights - be upheld. I say, Good for the airline for doing what they can to protect children travelling alone!
Finally, it is an example of how rules should not always be followed blindly (though they are good as guidlelines, in certain circumstances, letting them go is best for everyone). There can be extentuating circumstances which following the rules leading. (I know; I came to Oshawa as a stranger and was treated like a criminal, a threat, as someone worthy only of second-class treatment, or less, often by people doing their jobs which means followng the rules without thought.) In this case, the man had been travelling with his pregnant wife and they had switched seats so that she could be more comfortable by the window. The flight attendant was either unable or unwilling to consider the situation in its entirety. He ordered the man back to his original seat.
According to the Daily Mail, the male passenger said "I was made to feel like a criminal in front of other passengers. It was totally humiliating. Neither myself or my wife dared to speak to the boy in case the cabin crew forced us from our seats. The poor child must have thought we were extremely rude and unfriendly."
The male traveller backed off, which was the only thing he could do without looking like a - well - pervert, demanding to be seated next to the unaccompanied child. He did the right thing, and was recompensed for it later, so I fail to see why the situation is still being treated as problematic. The rule itself was not the problem, but the way the situation was handled. He was lucky to be able to sue and recieve justice. There are many people in this world - in Canada - who get treated badly every single day, who dare not speak for fear they will be punished, or who get blamed for anything bad that happens.
The discussion itself raised another issue, of conflicting rights. Sometimes, one person's rights (or one group's) can be stepped on by another person (or group) demanding theirs. In the discussion following the article, one of the commenters argued that if he had been accosted by airline staff about sitting next to an unaccompanied child he would have loudly complained then and there that he was being discriminated against, for being a man, or as news articles have put it - a pervert. Quite a lesson for the boy travelling alone to have to contend with. The male passenger did the only thing he could - he backed off, and was able to sue later.
My final comment on the National Post article was one I had submitted earlier in the discussion but which had been ignored, the commenter accusing me of being a "feminist propagandist" and needing a psychiatrist. So I will leave readers with this.
"I don't know how much feminists have had to do with such rules being created, but there has been increased awareness in society of how boys and girls can be taken advantage of, sexually, when they are left in close quarters with men who are sexual predators. Do you have a better way that the airline can deal with this?" (Sue McP)
Added June, 2012
Another good article explaining the fiaso is one by Dhruti Shah (BA seat policy, 2010). And finally, BA announces a change in policy! (Mirko Fischer winds again, 2010). A third piece, posted onto a Men’s equality website, is included, even though I think their perspective needs to be a bit broader than simply seeking ‘equality’ (Mirko Fisher is a men’s equality hero, 2010).
I have often said and will continue to say, about feminists, and now about men’s rights activists, that there never can be complete equality. Women need to listen to men’s concerns, and men need to listen to women’s (looking at it from a gender perspective.) Rules are made, or decisions made, then something comes up that puts the rule into question, and further adjustments are made. That’s how it works. And I see this case as being an example of that process. I imagine the people who made that policy weren’t doing it to intentionally embarrass men or make flying more difficult, or to lose customers. They were just thinking of the children.
BA seat policy made man 'feel like a child molester'
By Dhruti Shah
BBC News
June 24, 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869
Businessman sues BA 'for treating men like perverts'
By Sophie Borland
Daily Mail UK
Jan 16, 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html
Mirko Fisher is a men’s equality hero as British Airways continues its sexism against men
Posted by Skimmington
The Rights of Man
June 25, 2010
http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2010/06/mirko-fischer-is-a-mens-equality-hero-as-british-airways-continues-its-sexism-against-men-1.html
Mirko Fischer wins again
By NB, Washington, DC
The Economist, Gulliver
Aug 22, 2010
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/08/british_airways_seating_policy
You’re male. You must be a pervert
By Barbara Kay
National Post Full Comment
July 2, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/02/barbara-kay-youre-male-you-must-be-a-pervert/#more-5616
Links updated June 2012
I almost didn't respond to this in the section following the article, but I did, in response to another commenter, then got drawn into the topic of discussion - men's rights versus children's. I found the title to be unsettling - an exaggeration of a social problem men don't like to discuss.
I thought this was worthy of telling about here as it is an example of men who cannot see beyond their own needs and their own egos.
It was also an example of how women (one woman - Barbara Kay) can dismiss anyone else's concerns in order that her favourite cause - men's rights - be upheld. I say, Good for the airline for doing what they can to protect children travelling alone!
Finally, it is an example of how rules should not always be followed blindly (though they are good as guidlelines, in certain circumstances, letting them go is best for everyone). There can be extentuating circumstances which following the rules leading. (I know; I came to Oshawa as a stranger and was treated like a criminal, a threat, as someone worthy only of second-class treatment, or less, often by people doing their jobs which means followng the rules without thought.) In this case, the man had been travelling with his pregnant wife and they had switched seats so that she could be more comfortable by the window. The flight attendant was either unable or unwilling to consider the situation in its entirety. He ordered the man back to his original seat.
According to the Daily Mail, the male passenger said "I was made to feel like a criminal in front of other passengers. It was totally humiliating. Neither myself or my wife dared to speak to the boy in case the cabin crew forced us from our seats. The poor child must have thought we were extremely rude and unfriendly."
The male traveller backed off, which was the only thing he could do without looking like a - well - pervert, demanding to be seated next to the unaccompanied child. He did the right thing, and was recompensed for it later, so I fail to see why the situation is still being treated as problematic. The rule itself was not the problem, but the way the situation was handled. He was lucky to be able to sue and recieve justice. There are many people in this world - in Canada - who get treated badly every single day, who dare not speak for fear they will be punished, or who get blamed for anything bad that happens.
The discussion itself raised another issue, of conflicting rights. Sometimes, one person's rights (or one group's) can be stepped on by another person (or group) demanding theirs. In the discussion following the article, one of the commenters argued that if he had been accosted by airline staff about sitting next to an unaccompanied child he would have loudly complained then and there that he was being discriminated against, for being a man, or as news articles have put it - a pervert. Quite a lesson for the boy travelling alone to have to contend with. The male passenger did the only thing he could - he backed off, and was able to sue later.
My final comment on the National Post article was one I had submitted earlier in the discussion but which had been ignored, the commenter accusing me of being a "feminist propagandist" and needing a psychiatrist. So I will leave readers with this.
"I don't know how much feminists have had to do with such rules being created, but there has been increased awareness in society of how boys and girls can be taken advantage of, sexually, when they are left in close quarters with men who are sexual predators. Do you have a better way that the airline can deal with this?" (Sue McP)
Added June, 2012
Another good article explaining the fiaso is one by Dhruti Shah (BA seat policy, 2010). And finally, BA announces a change in policy! (Mirko Fischer winds again, 2010). A third piece, posted onto a Men’s equality website, is included, even though I think their perspective needs to be a bit broader than simply seeking ‘equality’ (Mirko Fisher is a men’s equality hero, 2010).
I have often said and will continue to say, about feminists, and now about men’s rights activists, that there never can be complete equality. Women need to listen to men’s concerns, and men need to listen to women’s (looking at it from a gender perspective.) Rules are made, or decisions made, then something comes up that puts the rule into question, and further adjustments are made. That’s how it works. And I see this case as being an example of that process. I imagine the people who made that policy weren’t doing it to intentionally embarrass men or make flying more difficult, or to lose customers. They were just thinking of the children.
BA seat policy made man 'feel like a child molester'
By Dhruti Shah
BBC News
June 24, 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869
Businessman sues BA 'for treating men like perverts'
By Sophie Borland
Daily Mail UK
Jan 16, 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243625/Businessman-Mirko-Fischer-sues-British-Airwars-treating-men-like-perverts.html
Mirko Fisher is a men’s equality hero as British Airways continues its sexism against men
Posted by Skimmington
The Rights of Man
June 25, 2010
http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2010/06/mirko-fischer-is-a-mens-equality-hero-as-british-airways-continues-its-sexism-against-men-1.html
Mirko Fischer wins again
By NB, Washington, DC
The Economist, Gulliver
Aug 22, 2010
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/08/british_airways_seating_policy
You’re male. You must be a pervert
By Barbara Kay
National Post Full Comment
July 2, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/02/barbara-kay-youre-male-you-must-be-a-pervert/#more-5616
Links updated June 2012
26 June 2010
Lost in Translation: theories of breasts and breast milk of Saudi women
A story from Saudi Arabia has people amazed at responses of high-up clerics to the problem of women and their 'foreign' drivers in this land. Traditional law seems to state that the women shouldn't be on such a familiar basis with men who are not part of their family. In order to rectify this problem, a high-up cleric has issued a fatwa stating that by sharing her breastmilk with her driver, the women, who are not permitted to drive themselves, can ensure that all is on the up-and-up and not a matter of questionable behaviour, with a foreigner (stranger?).
In the Los Angeles Times, and in many comments online following the National Post article, the emphasis is on the right of women to drive themselves. Saudi women have taken the gist of the fatwa one step further and said they will breastfeed their drivers if they cannot be permitted to drive the cars themselves.
The AOL article refers to the discussion between the two Saudi clerics. Sheikh Al Obeikan, "adviser to the royal court and consultant to the Ministry of Justice", stated that the women "ought to give them their breast milk so they will be considered relatives". But another high-profile sheik, Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini, then apparently announced that "men should suckle the breast milk directly from a woman's breast."
At this point I am wondering if it is a matter of miscommunication, of something lost in translation, as it just doesn't seem to make sense that a cleric would advocate women allow men to suck at their breasts. More detail is given in the articles, but not specifically about what the clerics meant.
The second cleric, Al Huwaini, sounds as though he is stating hypothetically that, if a man is to be considered a member of the family, then the men "should suckle the breast milk directly from a woman's breast." I don't see that as a directive, or even a suggestion. It looks more as though he is discussing traditional laws and what they mean, and the significance of them - these were simply two scholars discussing the theoretical implications of women and family, and laws on sharing breast milk versus actual breastfeeding.
Added June 2012
Writing from her perspective, Anushay Hossain concludes, “These women should be congratulated for using the issuing of yet another insane fatwa and flipping it into an opportunity to maybe one day, finally winning their right to drive” (What’s Up Saudi?, June 2010).
Saudi Clerics Advocate Adult Breast-Feeding
By Dana Kennedy
AOL News
June 5, 2010
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/saudi-clerics-advocate-adult-breast-feeding/19504280
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/04/saudi-clerics-advocate-adult-breastfeeding/
Saudi women threaten breast-feeding revolt [plus comments]
By Kelly McParland
National Post, Full Comment
June 23, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/23/saudi-women-threaten-breast-feeding-revolt/#more-4581
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_June_SaudiWomenThreatenBreastfeedingRevolt.doc
Women threaten to breastfeed drivers if they aren't allowed to drive
Los Angeles Times, Babylon & Beyond
June 22, 2010
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/06/saudi-women-use-fatwa-in-driving-bid.html
What’s Up Saudi? The Kingdom Insists on Keeping Women in the Stone Age
By Anushay Hossain
Anushay's Point
June 24, 2010
http://anushayspoint.com/tag/saudi-women-threaten-to-breastfeed-drivers/
links updated June 2012
In the Los Angeles Times, and in many comments online following the National Post article, the emphasis is on the right of women to drive themselves. Saudi women have taken the gist of the fatwa one step further and said they will breastfeed their drivers if they cannot be permitted to drive the cars themselves.
The AOL article refers to the discussion between the two Saudi clerics. Sheikh Al Obeikan, "adviser to the royal court and consultant to the Ministry of Justice", stated that the women "ought to give them their breast milk so they will be considered relatives". But another high-profile sheik, Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini, then apparently announced that "men should suckle the breast milk directly from a woman's breast."
At this point I am wondering if it is a matter of miscommunication, of something lost in translation, as it just doesn't seem to make sense that a cleric would advocate women allow men to suck at their breasts. More detail is given in the articles, but not specifically about what the clerics meant.
The second cleric, Al Huwaini, sounds as though he is stating hypothetically that, if a man is to be considered a member of the family, then the men "should suckle the breast milk directly from a woman's breast." I don't see that as a directive, or even a suggestion. It looks more as though he is discussing traditional laws and what they mean, and the significance of them - these were simply two scholars discussing the theoretical implications of women and family, and laws on sharing breast milk versus actual breastfeeding.
Added June 2012
Writing from her perspective, Anushay Hossain concludes, “These women should be congratulated for using the issuing of yet another insane fatwa and flipping it into an opportunity to maybe one day, finally winning their right to drive” (What’s Up Saudi?, June 2010).
Saudi Clerics Advocate Adult Breast-Feeding
By Dana Kennedy
AOL News
June 5, 2010
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/saudi-clerics-advocate-adult-breast-feeding/19504280
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/04/saudi-clerics-advocate-adult-breastfeeding/
Saudi women threaten breast-feeding revolt [plus comments]
By Kelly McParland
National Post, Full Comment
June 23, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/23/saudi-women-threaten-breast-feeding-revolt/#more-4581
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_June_SaudiWomenThreatenBreastfeedingRevolt.doc
Women threaten to breastfeed drivers if they aren't allowed to drive
Los Angeles Times, Babylon & Beyond
June 22, 2010
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/06/saudi-women-use-fatwa-in-driving-bid.html
What’s Up Saudi? The Kingdom Insists on Keeping Women in the Stone Age
By Anushay Hossain
Anushay's Point
June 24, 2010
http://anushayspoint.com/tag/saudi-women-threaten-to-breastfeed-drivers/
links updated June 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)