Historically, men have been sexually dominant. And their view of women was that they be submissive - not dominant, or independently active.
The subject of Alex Chapman’s sex life has come up again, since first being mentioned in July, 2012, informing us that the man who accused Jack King and wife judge Lori Douglas of sexual harassment was a sex performer who sought paying clients online (Chapman was 'online sex performer,' July 19, 2012; ‘Man at centre of Manitoba naked judge case was a sex performer: lawyer,’ Sept 17, 2012). The reality is that both Chapman and Douglas are ‘sexual performers.’ However, only one of them has been legitimized through historically-approved gender roles. Changes in perceptions of gender roles, not fully accepted across social and workplace boundaries, are at the root of this problem facing the Inquiry panel members, brought together to look into the circumstances of Lori Douglas's application for and acceptance as a Manitoba judge.
If the lawyers for Lori Douglas think that treating Chapman and Douglas the same is a way of avoiding bias, they are sadly mistaken. And if they try to have the inquiry ended for the reason of unfair bias, they are, once again, deluded as to what bias actually means, within the larger context of society, tradition, and sexual gender roles.
In July of this year, 2012, it was thought by two of the Inquiry panel members (Catherine Fraser and Guy Pratte) and by Rocco Galati, Chapman’s lawyer, that introducing Alex Chapman’s sex life into the proceedings would be unfair to him, showing him to have had consensual sexual relations despite disapproving of Lori Douglas’s sexual activities. However, Ms Fraser of the Inquiry panel apparently missed the point of consensual relationships by ignoring the power difference between Chapman, a client of Jack King’s, and the power couple of King and Douglas. It wouldn’t have been mutually consensual, for them to meet for the purpose of sex between Chapman and Douglas, not as long as one had more power than the other. As it turned out, the only power Chapman had, and one that made him fearful, was to take the case of sexual harassment to court.
Lori Douglas’s lawyer, Sheila Block, argued over the same point, saying that including that evidence would lessen the impact of Chapman’s claim that he was "shocked" and "damaged" by King's proposal of sex (Chapman was 'online sex performer,' July 19, 2012).
The problem with this kind of logic, as expressed by Lori Douglas’s lawyer especially, is that judge Lori Douglas and Alex Chapman are being treated as equals by members of the Inquiry panel and the lawyers, with no gender-specific or other differences in their beliefs, sexual conditioning, and social status being acknowledged. Trying to equate the kind of sexual behaviours that Lori Douglas engaged in with the kind that Chapman did doesn’t work. They come steeped in culture, gender-specific traditions, and power differences of various kinds. To start with, the images that distressed Chapman, that Jack King showed him, were of Lori Douglas, “naked in various forms of bondage, in chains, with sex toys and performing oral sex” (Judge sex controversy lawsuit quashed, Nov 16, 2010).
I would argue that Alex Chapman’s background, possibly his Jamaican roots, and his male conditioning, could easily account for his horror at seeing pics of the judge in bondage gear. We might assume that Chapman was a traditional man, raised to treat women in a particular manner, and not used to seeing them as dominant.
Journalist Dean Pritchard reports Chapman’s reaction to Jack King propositioning him to have sex with his wife, Lori Douglas, and to the photos of King’s wife and the website, as follows “It was sadistic stuff. I would never treat a woman like that. They were terrible pictures,” and “I went and checked it out and it was a paid website where there were black men raping white women, at least that's how I interpreted it. . . . I was disgusted by that stuff.” (King ‘messed with my head’, July 16, 2012).
Is it conceivable that a man who performs sexually for women online might hold traditional views of sexuality and gender roles? Certainly it is! Is it also a possibility that a man’s country of origin and his race could also affect his view of authority figures and punishment for going against what is expected of him? Of course! So we have one dominant sexual personality coming up against another, but only one of which is a traditional viewpoint. The other is feminist.
In the National Post’s Full Comment, Christie Blatchford writes about Chapman in a tone that suggests she doesn’t understand what it is like to be afraid of those in authority, of not having backup when needed, from one’s employer or even from one’s country. She ridicules and demeans Alex Chapman in a way that suggests she has no real comprehension of how a person might feel about his powerlessness, or how his very real powerlessness affects his life. She writes, quoting Chapman,
“‘Manitoba’s bench is totally corrupted,’ he said at another point. There were very ‘powerful people and they would make my life miserable,’ he said on a different occasion.”
Then she adds,
“The best, and also the worst, moment came when Mr. Chapman said, with a straight face, ‘These are powerful people I was dealing with and they may come and kill me’ (Accuser’s case against Manitoba judge perishing from self-inflicted wounds, Jul 17, 2012).
I can’t imagine that Christie Blatchford has ever felt that way.
As stated by journalist Steve Lambert, the five-member panel overseeing the inquiry has to deal with accusations of bias by both sides, a dispute that threatens to end the inquiry (Man at centre of Manitoba naked judge case was a sex performer: lawyer, Sept 17, 2012). But it isn’t Chapman who is on trial. And if his genuine discomfort with the sexually-dominant female has been misunderstood, it may be because he is surrounded by them, in court and in the media, and it may be these very same women who are reluctant to grant him any empathy for the situation in which he found himself.
On this theme, Christie Blatchford opens her story on the apparent contradiction between Alex Chapman’s pornography collection and his lack of desire for the kind of sexual attention Lori Douglas had on offer (Manitoba judge’s accuser no sexual wallflower, but inquiry astonishingly refused to hear about it, Sept 17, 2012). But there is no contradiction. If all pornography were the same, then it wouldn’t have to be continually created, with different scenarios, different women and men, different props, etc. No one can know why he didn’t take up the offer. Perhaps the reason had something to do with the sexual subject being the wife of the lawyer he had taking care of his divorce, his unwillingness to get involved, and his inability to gracefully exit the situation. The consequences of saying No to someone in power can be devastating, as many women know.
Margaret Wente presents her womanly perspective to this dilemma, arguing that “Of course we should hold judges to a higher standard than other people. But judges live in the real world. They even have sex lives. Lori Douglas's only crime was to choose an unstable spouse, and have sex with him (The persecution of Lori Douglas, July 14, 2011). But Margaret, we all live in the real world, and we all have to pay the consequences of our husband’s actions, their midlife crises or if not them, then those of our employers or colleagues, and so on. There is no end to it. You can’t put all the responsibility for this on Lori Douglas’s husband. As soon as they imposed on someone else’s life, they were involved, and partly responsible for the outcome, at least to the extent that they have to live with it. And as judge, Lori Douglas’s future is at stake, regardless of who was at fault, just as so many other women’s futures depend on the actions taken by those with whom they are in relationships.
Previously it has been stated that all the lawyers in her area knew of the circumstances of Lori Douglas’s photos on the internet, the first time she applied to be a judge (Nude photo controversy was 'well-known' in Manitoba's legal community, husband says, July 25, 2012). These are the people she associates with - her colleagues who accept and understand her, and her sexual habits. But why aren’t they able to understand and accept a man who gives the impression of being traditional, and needing to be dominant sexually? And if they cannot understand and empathize, what kind of lawyers and judges are they, while on the job?
Lori Douglas’s lawyers have asked the Federal Court of Canada to halt the inquiry, before it even gets to the real issue – Lori Douglas’s withholding of the facts of the photos online on the official application to become judge, other possibly misleading situations, and whether or not this will affect her future as judge (She had to know: Chapman, July 17, 2012).
Accuser’s case against Manitoba judge perishing from self-inflicted wounds, By Christie Blatchford, National Post Full Comment, Jul 17, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/17/christie-blatchford-accusers-case-against-manitoba-judge-perishing-from-self-inflicted-wounds/
Chapman was 'online sex performer', inquiry hears, By Dean Pritchard, QMI, Agency, Toronto Sun, July 19, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/19/chapman-was-online-sex-performer-inquiry-hears
Judge sex controversy lawsuit quashed, CBC News, Nov 16, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/11/16/mb-lawsuit-judge-sex-photos-winnipeg.html
King ‘messed with my head’: Chapman talks at Douglas inquiry, By Dean Pritchard, Winnipeg Sun, July 16, 2012
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/07/16/king-messed-with-my-head-chapman-talks-at-douglas-inquiry
Man at centre of Manitoba naked judge case was a sex performer: lawyer, By Steve Lambert, The Canadian Press, CTV News, Winnipeg, Sept 17, 2012
http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/man-at-centre-of-manitoba-naked-judge-case-was-a-sex-performer-lawyer-1.960225
Manitoba judge’s accuser no sexual wallflower, but inquiry astonishingly refused to hear about it, By Christie Blatchford, National Post Full Comment, Sept 17, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/17/christie-blatchford-manitoba-judges-accuser-no-sexual-wallflower-but-inquiry-unbelievably-refused-to-hear-of-his-antics/
Nude photo controversy was 'well-known' in Manitoba's legal community, husband says, By Steve Lambert
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press, Globe and Mail, July 25, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nude-photo-controversy-was-well-known-in-manitobas-legal-community-husband-says/article4440460/
The persecution of Lori Douglas, By Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail, July 14 2011, Last updated Sept 10 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-persecution-of-lori-douglas/article625825/
'She had to know': Chapman, By Mike McIntyre, Winnipeg Free Press, July 17, 2012
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/she-had-to-know-chapman-162690136.html
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
19 September 2012
2 November 2010
Russell Williams: voices of authority and privilege dictating on his right to live
Revised June, 2012
News coverage of the Russell Williams murder case has been deemed to be appropriate (Majority feel, Globe and Mail, Oct 25). Viewers comments have occasionally been restricted, yet it is under the auspices of one of the national newspapers itself that the greatest injustice and perhaps even, crime, has been committed. Of the three pieces in the Full Comment pages recently, on the murderer and former colonel Russell Williams, only one expresses worthwhile ideas.
Barbara Kay has judged Russell Williams's sense of morality, based, I suppose, on her own scarcity of it. If we examine that piece in more depth, we realize it is not the fact that he killed that bothers her most, for she herself is advocating that he be killed; it is something else that concerns her. If not the fact that he committed murder, what it is it exactly that she objects to? She doesn't care for his manner of carrying out his crimes, with efficiency, premeditation, and lack of feeling (see Russell Williams deserves, National Post, Oct 25, 2010). In my comments on a different piece (Should we kill, NP, Oct 31, 2010), I referred to Kay's column on the subject as being similar to Hitler's sense of morality, a point of view that was not warmly received. Let me explain further.
It has struck me that there's something not quite right about someone using their position to advocate a certain position, and one that involves executing someone. Yet this is what Barbara is doing, and apparently with the approval of the National Post. If Williams is seen to 'deserve' the death penalty, then in Kay's view it seems it would be morally acceptable to execute him if done 'humanely.' If this is the case, how do you cause someone's life to end humanely? Is it best to sneak up on them and hit them over the head from behind, or not tell them that you're going to inject them with a drug that will end their life, as Harold Shipman did in England? Or should one place them on death row for years on end, so they will know for certain (almost) that they will never live a normal life ever again but must simply wait for the grim reaper, though when he does come, presumably the physical pain the death row convict will feel will not even come close to what his own tortured victims suffered. It is the physical pain Barbara Kay is concerned about, isn't it? Not the emotional pain of the condemned man, or possibly even that of his victims and the families of his victims. Is Kay's aim to see justice done, or to present her own views for others to consider, or to try to convince readers of her own beliefs, at the same time ridding herself of the emotional distress caused by hearing what this man Russell Williams did.
Kay refers to Williams as evil, thus deserving of capital punishment in her view. But who is she to decide who is evil or not, or even whether evil truly exists in our world or whether anyone is wholly evil. Which one of us is wholly evil, or wholly innocent? No one. Williams conducted himself well doing his job; in fact, he had a highly successful military career (Col. Russell Williams, The Record, Feb 13). Should this count for him, or are the bad deeds men do the only ones people should remember? Should a man who has committed such atrocities be given the death penalty so that others learn from that, or to rid the world of people like him, or because he is seen to be evil and morally inferior?
If anyone focuses on the weaknesses or moral frailties of any other person, is that acceptable? If we advocate death for that person, in a country where the death penalty is not lawful, and if we do so in a forum which is read by countless readers, is that permissible? Is that 'freedom of speech' or is using the power of one's position to pursue one's own agenda, one that involves the killing of another human being, an action that should be deplored? Who, indeed, has the right to determine who should have to die (see Williams doesn’t, NP, Oct 27, 2010).
Russell Williams is being made a scapegoat, someone to take on all the hatred and emotional turmoil that can't be placed elsewhere, by people who have the power to address this situation rationally and sensibly rather than as something 'evil. The fact that his escapades involved sexuality, however warped and deviant people may see that, suggests that what we need from this man, and his family, friends, and colleagues, is as much information we can get so we can understand this better. Furthermore, setting up a dichotomy between execution and brain malfunction doesn't even make sense (Should we kill, NP, Oct 31, 2010).
Are Opinions' pages of newspapers permitted to present views that could incite hatred? How is it that individual writers or journalists are allowed to write on subjects they know nothing about, or are permitted to present their thoughts on important topics in a disoriented, or thoughtless, yet persuasive manner. If, as they might well claim, these are simply their opinions, why is it such a newspaper as the National Post pays them to promote such meaningless thoughts or possibly dangerous ideas? It seems what counts most is selling newspapers.
Added June, 2012
Two additional revelations may lead to further considerations on discussion of the death penalty vs life for Russell Williams – the fact that he is receiving a pension (Russell Williams collects pension, 2011) and his reluctance to accept responsibility for the attack, coercion, and emotional harm to one of his victims (Maclean’s exclusive, 2012).
Col. Russell Williams: Who is this man?
By Raveena Aulakh, David Bruser and Katie Daubs
The Record
Feb 13, 2010
http://news.therecord.com/article/670127
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_Feb_ColRussellWilliamsWhoisthis.doc
Maclean’s exclusive: Russell Williams offers a defence
By Michael Friscolanti
Macleans
June 14, 2012
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/14/exclusive-russell-williams-offers-a-defence/
Majority feel Russell Williams coverage struck ‘right balance’
By Jane Taber
Globe and Mail
Oct 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/majority-feel-russell-williams-coverage-struck-right-balance/article1771996/
Russell Williams collects pension yet owes $8,000 in victim fines
By Valerie Hauch
Toronto Star, & thespec.com
Mar 8, 2011, & Mar 9 2011
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/950896--russell-williams-collects-pension-yet-owes-8-000-in-victim-fines
http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/article/498238--russell-williams-collects-pension-yet-owes-8-000-in-victim-fines
Russell Williams deserves to die
By Barbara Kay
National Post Full Comment
Oct 25, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/25/barbara-kay-russell-williams-deserves-to-die/
Should we kill a serial killer, or does the fault lie within his brain?
By Paul Russell
National Post Full Comment
Oct 31, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/31/paul-russell-should-we-kill-a-serial-killer-or-does-the-fault-lie-within-his-brain/#more-16442
Williams doesn’t deserve to die
By John Moore
National Post Full Comment
Oct 27, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/27/john-moore-williams-doesnt-deserve-to-die/#more-16083
Links updated June, 2012
News coverage of the Russell Williams murder case has been deemed to be appropriate (Majority feel, Globe and Mail, Oct 25). Viewers comments have occasionally been restricted, yet it is under the auspices of one of the national newspapers itself that the greatest injustice and perhaps even, crime, has been committed. Of the three pieces in the Full Comment pages recently, on the murderer and former colonel Russell Williams, only one expresses worthwhile ideas.
Barbara Kay has judged Russell Williams's sense of morality, based, I suppose, on her own scarcity of it. If we examine that piece in more depth, we realize it is not the fact that he killed that bothers her most, for she herself is advocating that he be killed; it is something else that concerns her. If not the fact that he committed murder, what it is it exactly that she objects to? She doesn't care for his manner of carrying out his crimes, with efficiency, premeditation, and lack of feeling (see Russell Williams deserves, National Post, Oct 25, 2010). In my comments on a different piece (Should we kill, NP, Oct 31, 2010), I referred to Kay's column on the subject as being similar to Hitler's sense of morality, a point of view that was not warmly received. Let me explain further.
It has struck me that there's something not quite right about someone using their position to advocate a certain position, and one that involves executing someone. Yet this is what Barbara is doing, and apparently with the approval of the National Post. If Williams is seen to 'deserve' the death penalty, then in Kay's view it seems it would be morally acceptable to execute him if done 'humanely.' If this is the case, how do you cause someone's life to end humanely? Is it best to sneak up on them and hit them over the head from behind, or not tell them that you're going to inject them with a drug that will end their life, as Harold Shipman did in England? Or should one place them on death row for years on end, so they will know for certain (almost) that they will never live a normal life ever again but must simply wait for the grim reaper, though when he does come, presumably the physical pain the death row convict will feel will not even come close to what his own tortured victims suffered. It is the physical pain Barbara Kay is concerned about, isn't it? Not the emotional pain of the condemned man, or possibly even that of his victims and the families of his victims. Is Kay's aim to see justice done, or to present her own views for others to consider, or to try to convince readers of her own beliefs, at the same time ridding herself of the emotional distress caused by hearing what this man Russell Williams did.
Kay refers to Williams as evil, thus deserving of capital punishment in her view. But who is she to decide who is evil or not, or even whether evil truly exists in our world or whether anyone is wholly evil. Which one of us is wholly evil, or wholly innocent? No one. Williams conducted himself well doing his job; in fact, he had a highly successful military career (Col. Russell Williams, The Record, Feb 13). Should this count for him, or are the bad deeds men do the only ones people should remember? Should a man who has committed such atrocities be given the death penalty so that others learn from that, or to rid the world of people like him, or because he is seen to be evil and morally inferior?
If anyone focuses on the weaknesses or moral frailties of any other person, is that acceptable? If we advocate death for that person, in a country where the death penalty is not lawful, and if we do so in a forum which is read by countless readers, is that permissible? Is that 'freedom of speech' or is using the power of one's position to pursue one's own agenda, one that involves the killing of another human being, an action that should be deplored? Who, indeed, has the right to determine who should have to die (see Williams doesn’t, NP, Oct 27, 2010).
Russell Williams is being made a scapegoat, someone to take on all the hatred and emotional turmoil that can't be placed elsewhere, by people who have the power to address this situation rationally and sensibly rather than as something 'evil. The fact that his escapades involved sexuality, however warped and deviant people may see that, suggests that what we need from this man, and his family, friends, and colleagues, is as much information we can get so we can understand this better. Furthermore, setting up a dichotomy between execution and brain malfunction doesn't even make sense (Should we kill, NP, Oct 31, 2010).
Are Opinions' pages of newspapers permitted to present views that could incite hatred? How is it that individual writers or journalists are allowed to write on subjects they know nothing about, or are permitted to present their thoughts on important topics in a disoriented, or thoughtless, yet persuasive manner. If, as they might well claim, these are simply their opinions, why is it such a newspaper as the National Post pays them to promote such meaningless thoughts or possibly dangerous ideas? It seems what counts most is selling newspapers.
Added June, 2012
Two additional revelations may lead to further considerations on discussion of the death penalty vs life for Russell Williams – the fact that he is receiving a pension (Russell Williams collects pension, 2011) and his reluctance to accept responsibility for the attack, coercion, and emotional harm to one of his victims (Maclean’s exclusive, 2012).
Col. Russell Williams: Who is this man?
By Raveena Aulakh, David Bruser and Katie Daubs
The Record
Feb 13, 2010
http://news.therecord.com/article/670127
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_Feb_ColRussellWilliamsWhoisthis.doc
Maclean’s exclusive: Russell Williams offers a defence
By Michael Friscolanti
Macleans
June 14, 2012
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/14/exclusive-russell-williams-offers-a-defence/
Majority feel Russell Williams coverage struck ‘right balance’
By Jane Taber
Globe and Mail
Oct 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/majority-feel-russell-williams-coverage-struck-right-balance/article1771996/
Russell Williams collects pension yet owes $8,000 in victim fines
By Valerie Hauch
Toronto Star, & thespec.com
Mar 8, 2011, & Mar 9 2011
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/950896--russell-williams-collects-pension-yet-owes-8-000-in-victim-fines
http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/article/498238--russell-williams-collects-pension-yet-owes-8-000-in-victim-fines
Russell Williams deserves to die
By Barbara Kay
National Post Full Comment
Oct 25, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/25/barbara-kay-russell-williams-deserves-to-die/
Should we kill a serial killer, or does the fault lie within his brain?
By Paul Russell
National Post Full Comment
Oct 31, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/31/paul-russell-should-we-kill-a-serial-killer-or-does-the-fault-lie-within-his-brain/#more-16442
Williams doesn’t deserve to die
By John Moore
National Post Full Comment
Oct 27, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/27/john-moore-williams-doesnt-deserve-to-die/#more-16083
Links updated June, 2012
19 July 2010
What's wrong with the Pamela Anderson PETA ad: plus the Rylstone and District Women's Institute calendar and the female Czech politicians calendar
revised Apr 23, 2010
The ad depicting bikini-clad Pamela Anderson as a piece of meat, the names of the cuts such as 'rump' and 'breast' displayed on her body, has been denied a public display by a Montreal agency. An animal rights group, PETA, had wanted to use the poster to gain interest in its cause, animal rights. On the basis of it being sexist, PETA was denied a permit, thus forbidding the group to use the poster, officially, in the launch of its campaign in Montreal at Place Jacques-Cartier in front of the City Hall. Instead, the launch is scheduled for a local restaurant.
Check out the double entendre in this McDonald's ad which illustrates its meat in a manner opposite to the way the PETA ad does (Piece of meat, Slang City, 2005). Ingrid Newkirk and the PETA group don't seem to have any regard for human females, only female (and male) animals. If they did, would they use sex in this manner to draw attention to animal rights. Continuing to perpetuate the idea that women are pieces of meat in men's eyes is harmful to women - not to women who have the financial means and the support to remain safe but to the ones who have to rely on men for their survival and who have little power on their side.
Will people buy the PETA poster just because the proceeds go to PETA, or because it is a poster of a beautiful Pamela Anderson, or do they enjoy the joke behind it more, that women are often talked of as being pieces of meat for the sexual use of men and here it is, in a poster endorsed by PETA? This is not the first time controversial images have been used by PETA (see PETA women-as-meat, June 14, 2008). No doubt the poster will enhance Pamela Anderson's reputation, as the PETA site claims, giving her the opportunity to show off "her outer-and inner-beauty to promote a vegetarian diet and point out the similarities between humans and animals" (Pamela Anderson shows that all animals, July 17, 2010). But the effect on the women within society, and on men, is still debatable.
Scantily-clad women are all over the internet. Female Czech politicians have made the news recently, promoting their risqué 2011 calendar (Czechmates, July 9, 2010) to highlight the presence of women in politics. One of the women who appears in the calendar is Marketa Reedova, a 42-year-old Prague city councilwoman now running for mayor. She says "Women's political influence is growing. Why not show we are women who aren't afraid of being sexy? . . . Czechs are open-minded."
Why not show it? Maybe because being sexy isn't simply about showing it. Surely it's closer to being porn than being sexual, if we see porn as something men seek for their own needs while women perform, while being sexy is more to do with the person and her partner. Nevertheless, Czechs are following the lead of the west, the article claims, resisting "the unglamorous trappings and enforced unisex treatment imposed by socialism" (Czechmates, July 9, 2010). Taking steps to 'prove' they are sexual, in such a public manner, would surely be a sign of insecurity, not like the kind of behaviour shown by Pamela Anderson, who surely has nothing more to prove in that respect. For more on the calendar, see Backlash Begins, July 19, 2010.
A decade ago another group of women, members of the Rylstone and District Women's Institute, published a nude calendar (see Calendar girls galore, April 24, 2010). It was a tremendous success! The article tells how the calendar, still being published, has changed over time, and explores the effects of the calendar on various groups also using nude calendars to raise money for a cause. I found the calendar to be a sensitive yet bold way of capturing older women's qualities and strengths (see Beer and Tea, July, 2001).
Pamela Anderson has said, "In a city that is known for its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest over the suffering of cows and chickens" (Pamela Anderson's sexy, July 15, 2010). Women's embodied presence can be a source of power to them. But it can also be exploited, and the images as well as the thoughts behind them might do harm to others. As society continues to deteriorate, under the guise of progress and freedom, especially in the areas of economics and sex, it could be helpful to pause and reflect on some of these issues.
Added Apr 23, 2012
The PETA ad with Pamela Anderson is sexist, but if it isn’t being displayed in a way to intentionally cause offense, and isn’t overly large or imposing, or in the wrong neighbourhood, is there a problem. As others have stated, this display was set up in Montreal, not in a place where sexual images are not seen on a daily basis. The one part of it that is problematic, as I see it, is what is implied by showing a woman’s body as pieces of meat.
As images of sex become more overt, sometimes in unexpected places (see Public displays of private matters, July, 2007), and more women appear to accept that using their sexual attractiveness to achieve their goals is the norm in society today, while men respond to that the way men will, do we need strategies that prevent this from becoming the new form of ‘merit.’
References
Backlash Begins for Czech Calendar MPs
By Leos Rousek
New Europe (US edition)
July 19, 2010
http://blogs.wsj.com/new-europe/2010/07/19/backlash-begins-for-czech-calendar-mps/
Beer and Tea: Harmony and Contradiction Among Two Unlikely Counterparts
By Sue McPherson
July 2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/2001BeerandTeaSueMcPherson.doc
Calendar girls galore
The Guardian
April 24, 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/24/calender-girls-galore
Czechmates: These Political Figures Star in Their Own Racy Calendar
By Gordon Fairclough and Sean Carney
Wall Street Journal
July 9, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704334604575339011352332760.html#articleTabs_slideshow%3D%26articleTabs%3Darticle
Pamela Anderson Shows That All Animals Have the Same Parts
PETA
July 17, 2010
https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3205
Pamela Anderson's new PETA ad branded 'sexist' and banned in Canada
By Mail Online Reporter
Daily Mail
16 July 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1294981/Pamela-Anderson-PETA-advert-banned-Canada.html
Pamela Anderson's sexy body-baring PETA ad gets banned in Canada
By Kristie Cavanagh
NY Daily News
July 15, 2010
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/07/15/2010-07-15_pamela_andersons_racy_peta_ad_banned_in_montreal.html
PETA women-as-meat demonstration
By Gwen Sharp
Sociological Images by Lisa Wade and Gwen Sharp
June 14, 2008
http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/06/14/peta-women-as-meat-demonstration/
Piece of Meat
Slang City
2005
http://www.slangcity.com/realenglish/print/piece_of_meat.htm
Public displays of private matters - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Dec 7, 2007
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2007/12/public-and-private-work-and-sex.html
Links updated Apr 23, 2012
The ad depicting bikini-clad Pamela Anderson as a piece of meat, the names of the cuts such as 'rump' and 'breast' displayed on her body, has been denied a public display by a Montreal agency. An animal rights group, PETA, had wanted to use the poster to gain interest in its cause, animal rights. On the basis of it being sexist, PETA was denied a permit, thus forbidding the group to use the poster, officially, in the launch of its campaign in Montreal at Place Jacques-Cartier in front of the City Hall. Instead, the launch is scheduled for a local restaurant.
Check out the double entendre in this McDonald's ad which illustrates its meat in a manner opposite to the way the PETA ad does (Piece of meat, Slang City, 2005). Ingrid Newkirk and the PETA group don't seem to have any regard for human females, only female (and male) animals. If they did, would they use sex in this manner to draw attention to animal rights. Continuing to perpetuate the idea that women are pieces of meat in men's eyes is harmful to women - not to women who have the financial means and the support to remain safe but to the ones who have to rely on men for their survival and who have little power on their side.
Will people buy the PETA poster just because the proceeds go to PETA, or because it is a poster of a beautiful Pamela Anderson, or do they enjoy the joke behind it more, that women are often talked of as being pieces of meat for the sexual use of men and here it is, in a poster endorsed by PETA? This is not the first time controversial images have been used by PETA (see PETA women-as-meat, June 14, 2008). No doubt the poster will enhance Pamela Anderson's reputation, as the PETA site claims, giving her the opportunity to show off "her outer-and inner-beauty to promote a vegetarian diet and point out the similarities between humans and animals" (Pamela Anderson shows that all animals, July 17, 2010). But the effect on the women within society, and on men, is still debatable.
Scantily-clad women are all over the internet. Female Czech politicians have made the news recently, promoting their risqué 2011 calendar (Czechmates, July 9, 2010) to highlight the presence of women in politics. One of the women who appears in the calendar is Marketa Reedova, a 42-year-old Prague city councilwoman now running for mayor. She says "Women's political influence is growing. Why not show we are women who aren't afraid of being sexy? . . . Czechs are open-minded."
Why not show it? Maybe because being sexy isn't simply about showing it. Surely it's closer to being porn than being sexual, if we see porn as something men seek for their own needs while women perform, while being sexy is more to do with the person and her partner. Nevertheless, Czechs are following the lead of the west, the article claims, resisting "the unglamorous trappings and enforced unisex treatment imposed by socialism" (Czechmates, July 9, 2010). Taking steps to 'prove' they are sexual, in such a public manner, would surely be a sign of insecurity, not like the kind of behaviour shown by Pamela Anderson, who surely has nothing more to prove in that respect. For more on the calendar, see Backlash Begins, July 19, 2010.
A decade ago another group of women, members of the Rylstone and District Women's Institute, published a nude calendar (see Calendar girls galore, April 24, 2010). It was a tremendous success! The article tells how the calendar, still being published, has changed over time, and explores the effects of the calendar on various groups also using nude calendars to raise money for a cause. I found the calendar to be a sensitive yet bold way of capturing older women's qualities and strengths (see Beer and Tea, July, 2001).
Pamela Anderson has said, "In a city that is known for its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest over the suffering of cows and chickens" (Pamela Anderson's sexy, July 15, 2010). Women's embodied presence can be a source of power to them. But it can also be exploited, and the images as well as the thoughts behind them might do harm to others. As society continues to deteriorate, under the guise of progress and freedom, especially in the areas of economics and sex, it could be helpful to pause and reflect on some of these issues.
Added Apr 23, 2012
The PETA ad with Pamela Anderson is sexist, but if it isn’t being displayed in a way to intentionally cause offense, and isn’t overly large or imposing, or in the wrong neighbourhood, is there a problem. As others have stated, this display was set up in Montreal, not in a place where sexual images are not seen on a daily basis. The one part of it that is problematic, as I see it, is what is implied by showing a woman’s body as pieces of meat.
As images of sex become more overt, sometimes in unexpected places (see Public displays of private matters, July, 2007), and more women appear to accept that using their sexual attractiveness to achieve their goals is the norm in society today, while men respond to that the way men will, do we need strategies that prevent this from becoming the new form of ‘merit.’
References
Backlash Begins for Czech Calendar MPs
By Leos Rousek
New Europe (US edition)
July 19, 2010
http://blogs.wsj.com/new-europe/2010/07/19/backlash-begins-for-czech-calendar-mps/
Beer and Tea: Harmony and Contradiction Among Two Unlikely Counterparts
By Sue McPherson
July 2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/2001BeerandTeaSueMcPherson.doc
Calendar girls galore
The Guardian
April 24, 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/24/calender-girls-galore
Czechmates: These Political Figures Star in Their Own Racy Calendar
By Gordon Fairclough and Sean Carney
Wall Street Journal
July 9, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704334604575339011352332760.html#articleTabs_slideshow%3D%26articleTabs%3Darticle
Pamela Anderson Shows That All Animals Have the Same Parts
PETA
July 17, 2010
https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3205
Pamela Anderson's new PETA ad branded 'sexist' and banned in Canada
By Mail Online Reporter
Daily Mail
16 July 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1294981/Pamela-Anderson-PETA-advert-banned-Canada.html
Pamela Anderson's sexy body-baring PETA ad gets banned in Canada
By Kristie Cavanagh
NY Daily News
July 15, 2010
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/07/15/2010-07-15_pamela_andersons_racy_peta_ad_banned_in_montreal.html
PETA women-as-meat demonstration
By Gwen Sharp
Sociological Images by Lisa Wade and Gwen Sharp
June 14, 2008
http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/06/14/peta-women-as-meat-demonstration/
Piece of Meat
Slang City
2005
http://www.slangcity.com/realenglish/print/piece_of_meat.htm
Public displays of private matters - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Dec 7, 2007
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2007/12/public-and-private-work-and-sex.html
Links updated Apr 23, 2012
28 April 2010
Compulsory heterosexuality, sex education in schools, and multisexualism
Sex is political, not just pleasure-driven, the idea of 'compulsory heterosexuality' being the foremost lifestyle on which our society hinges. What everyone is required to do, regardless of their sexuality, is to reinforce the compulsory cultural norm of heterosexuality, at home, work, and school, and at volunteer activities.
Pressure is put on young men and women to conform or if not, to uphold the one accepted major sexual lifestyle in our society in the 21st century - heterosexuality. Even lesbians have to abide by the desires of straight men, and find a way of living in this world alongside them; not so difficult for gay men, whose brains, and the location of them, aren't so far off that of straight men.
Is it possible for society to raise respectful men and women, when so much hinges on their support for an ideology that places at its centre not just the old stand-by 'family,' but the ideals of 'pleasure' and 'work'? Heterosexuality has little to do with respect. Rewarding those who conform to or uphold heterosexual demands leads only to a false respect. It's about power and subordination, rather than co-operation and respect for one's own body and the choices of others. Men's desire for sex, and women's for a career or the chance to do their life's work, seem to involve the necessity to 'fake it', each in their own way, as their agendas collide.Barbara Kay argues in her recent article that 'multisexualism' refers to the idea that "all sexual behaviours and lifestyles are of equal social worth, except those that refuse to detach morality from sexuality." This has been the way sex education has been presented in schools, as something matter-of-fact, instead of sexuality being recognized as value-laden and deeply personal (at least for some). Time for change!
What is needed, rather than a school curriculum about sexual practices, is for boys and girls to become aware from an early stage how our society indoctrinates them into becoming men or women. Instead of sex classes, an emphasis on masculinity and femininity in the social context of life could be a valuable addition to the school curriculum. Teaching 'sex and gender' classes at an earlier age would give young people the resources they need to examine the social situations they find themselves in as they grow older, and possibly make more informed choices.
And then there's the argument that heterosexuality is normal, that it's how our civilized society has evolved, that there's nothing 'compulsory' about it. But surely female animals don't always want sex with the males but do have to coerced, sometimes. Do the males just have to line up, or do they have to preen and display their maleness to attract the females.
Girls no longer have to wait for estrus, as their female animal counterparts have to, but that doesn't mean they want it all the time. Heterosexuality is fine, as a lifestyle, or a cultural norm. But it's through women having to look sexually attractive, having to do sex in order to be 'real' women, or though being coerced or having to put up with men's unwanted advances as well as putting up with women's acts of persuasion,' that the term 'compulsory' takes its meaning.
The original mention of the new sex education curriculum mentioned sexual orientation and gender identity. Could it be these terms that scared parents, the public schools, and the Catholic schools) off just as much as the mention of anal sex? It looks as though most parents just want their kids to know the basics, but not have any further understanding of their own sexuality.
Added June, 2012
It looks like things are changing rather quickly. Note links to 5 additional articles added - Anti-bullying bill a front (2011); Anti-bullying bill passes (2012); Birds, bees and poisonous rhetoric (2011); Hudak says McGuinty keeps parents in dark (2011); Sex-ed game featuring penis-armed 'Sperminator' (2012).
Anti-bullying bill a front for ‘sex ed’ agenda, groups say
By Tanya Talaga Queen's Park Bureau
The Star
Dec 6, 2011
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1097682--anti-bullying-bill-a-front-for-sex-ed-agenda-groups-say
Anti-bullying bill passes final reading
The Canadian Press
The Record
Jun 6, 2012
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/737846--anti-bullying-bill-passes-final-reading
Birds, bees and poisonous rhetoric on sex ed in Ontario
By Emma Teitel
Oct 25, 2011
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/25/birds-bees-and-poisonous-rhetoric/
The cult of multisexualism
By Barbara Kay
National Post
Apr 28, 2010 http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/28/barbara-kay-the-cult-of-multisexualism.aspx link not working
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/04/28/barbara-kay-the-cult-of-multisexualism/
Hudak says McGuinty keeps parents in dark on sex-ed curriculum
By Keith Leslie, The Canadian Press
Global Toronto News and The Canadian Times
Sept 23, 2011
http://www.globaltoronto.com/hudak+says+mcguinty+keeps+parents+in+dark+on+sex-ed+curriculum/6442488232/story.html
http://www.canadiantimes.ca/CMS/index.php/word-tv/77-news-news/830-hudak-says-mcguinty-keeps-parents-in-dark-on-sex-ed-curriculum
McGuinty says he was in the dark about sex-ed plan
By Karen Howlett Toronto — Globe and Mail Update
Published on Wednesday, Apr. 28, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/mcguinty-says-he-was-in-the-dark-about-sex-ed-plan/article1549547/
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_Apr_McGuintyInDarkAboutSex.doc
McGuinty’s sex-ed surrender
TO Star
Apr 29, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/802560--mcguinty-s-sex-ed-surrender
Ontario premier defends sex-ed curriculum
By Linda Nguyen, Canwest News Service
National Post
Apr 20, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2930506
http://www.globaltvbc.com/ontario+premier+defends+sex-ed+curriculum/74305/story.html
Sex-ed game featuring penis-armed 'Sperminator' sparks controversy
By Jonathan Sher, QMI Agency
Toronto Sun
Jan 20, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/20/sex-ed-game-featuring-penis-armed-sperminator-sparks-controversy
Links updated June 2012
Pressure is put on young men and women to conform or if not, to uphold the one accepted major sexual lifestyle in our society in the 21st century - heterosexuality. Even lesbians have to abide by the desires of straight men, and find a way of living in this world alongside them; not so difficult for gay men, whose brains, and the location of them, aren't so far off that of straight men.
Is it possible for society to raise respectful men and women, when so much hinges on their support for an ideology that places at its centre not just the old stand-by 'family,' but the ideals of 'pleasure' and 'work'? Heterosexuality has little to do with respect. Rewarding those who conform to or uphold heterosexual demands leads only to a false respect. It's about power and subordination, rather than co-operation and respect for one's own body and the choices of others. Men's desire for sex, and women's for a career or the chance to do their life's work, seem to involve the necessity to 'fake it', each in their own way, as their agendas collide.Barbara Kay argues in her recent article that 'multisexualism' refers to the idea that "all sexual behaviours and lifestyles are of equal social worth, except those that refuse to detach morality from sexuality." This has been the way sex education has been presented in schools, as something matter-of-fact, instead of sexuality being recognized as value-laden and deeply personal (at least for some). Time for change!
What is needed, rather than a school curriculum about sexual practices, is for boys and girls to become aware from an early stage how our society indoctrinates them into becoming men or women. Instead of sex classes, an emphasis on masculinity and femininity in the social context of life could be a valuable addition to the school curriculum. Teaching 'sex and gender' classes at an earlier age would give young people the resources they need to examine the social situations they find themselves in as they grow older, and possibly make more informed choices.
And then there's the argument that heterosexuality is normal, that it's how our civilized society has evolved, that there's nothing 'compulsory' about it. But surely female animals don't always want sex with the males but do have to coerced, sometimes. Do the males just have to line up, or do they have to preen and display their maleness to attract the females.
Girls no longer have to wait for estrus, as their female animal counterparts have to, but that doesn't mean they want it all the time. Heterosexuality is fine, as a lifestyle, or a cultural norm. But it's through women having to look sexually attractive, having to do sex in order to be 'real' women, or though being coerced or having to put up with men's unwanted advances as well as putting up with women's acts of persuasion,' that the term 'compulsory' takes its meaning.
The original mention of the new sex education curriculum mentioned sexual orientation and gender identity. Could it be these terms that scared parents, the public schools, and the Catholic schools) off just as much as the mention of anal sex? It looks as though most parents just want their kids to know the basics, but not have any further understanding of their own sexuality.
Added June, 2012
It looks like things are changing rather quickly. Note links to 5 additional articles added - Anti-bullying bill a front (2011); Anti-bullying bill passes (2012); Birds, bees and poisonous rhetoric (2011); Hudak says McGuinty keeps parents in dark (2011); Sex-ed game featuring penis-armed 'Sperminator' (2012).
Anti-bullying bill a front for ‘sex ed’ agenda, groups say
By Tanya Talaga Queen's Park Bureau
The Star
Dec 6, 2011
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1097682--anti-bullying-bill-a-front-for-sex-ed-agenda-groups-say
Anti-bullying bill passes final reading
The Canadian Press
The Record
Jun 6, 2012
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/737846--anti-bullying-bill-passes-final-reading
Birds, bees and poisonous rhetoric on sex ed in Ontario
By Emma Teitel
Oct 25, 2011
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/25/birds-bees-and-poisonous-rhetoric/
The cult of multisexualism
By Barbara Kay
National Post
Apr 28, 2010 http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/28/barbara-kay-the-cult-of-multisexualism.aspx link not working
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/04/28/barbara-kay-the-cult-of-multisexualism/
Hudak says McGuinty keeps parents in dark on sex-ed curriculum
By Keith Leslie, The Canadian Press
Global Toronto News and The Canadian Times
Sept 23, 2011
http://www.globaltoronto.com/hudak+says+mcguinty+keeps+parents+in+dark+on+sex-ed+curriculum/6442488232/story.html
http://www.canadiantimes.ca/CMS/index.php/word-tv/77-news-news/830-hudak-says-mcguinty-keeps-parents-in-dark-on-sex-ed-curriculum
McGuinty says he was in the dark about sex-ed plan
By Karen Howlett Toronto — Globe and Mail Update
Published on Wednesday, Apr. 28, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/mcguinty-says-he-was-in-the-dark-about-sex-ed-plan/article1549547/
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_Apr_McGuintyInDarkAboutSex.doc
McGuinty’s sex-ed surrender
TO Star
Apr 29, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/802560--mcguinty-s-sex-ed-surrender
Ontario premier defends sex-ed curriculum
By Linda Nguyen, Canwest News Service
National Post
Apr 20, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2930506
http://www.globaltvbc.com/ontario+premier+defends+sex-ed+curriculum/74305/story.html
Sex-ed game featuring penis-armed 'Sperminator' sparks controversy
By Jonathan Sher, QMI Agency
Toronto Sun
Jan 20, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/20/sex-ed-game-featuring-penis-armed-sperminator-sparks-controversy
Links updated June 2012
16 March 2010
Dutch man sees it his right to have nurses serve his sexual needs
I can't help wondering why we don't see similar articles about this kind of thing, in Canada. Surely it's not only the Netherlands that have had this sort of problem. A disabled man apparently expected one of his nurses to provide sexual relief. The nurse had noticed other nurses doing so but refused as she did not see it as part of her job. It must be difficult to be disabled and male, but was this the best response, for him to try and get her fired from her job? It's hard to believe that the man felt so strongly that this was his right. Hasn't our society progressed at all?
The nurse took her complaint to the nurses union. The result was a campaign called “I Draw The Line Here." The union also reported the case to the police, according to an article in the Toronto Star.
As usual, I left my comments online, at the Globe and Mail article. There were a lot of nonsense comments, and a lot from men who seemed to have the same attitude as the Dutch man. Not a lot of analysis, otherwise. I shall include an excerpt of what I wrote, and would welcome comments from readers with their own perspectives.
" . . . what you will find is that some women are catering to the needs of the men who ask/expect/pay for it. There are some women in every workplace who have no problem doing this kind of work. And they probably have no trouble finding work in their area when they want it, just as you say - health care workers too, who provide sexual relief for men. I would think that any woman who gets that close to the physical aspect of caring for male patients - such as massage therapy, too - might get more advances that women who don't work in such areas.
If these male patients are requesting sexual relief from female workers, I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't asking it from female patients too, or anybody they can get away with asking. That is traditional behaviour for men, after all. Just ask women. What is problematic, and what this article is getting at, is that women shouldn't be expected to do this kind of work. Men shouldn't expect that all women are keen on serving them sexually. Or even reluctantly. Some women would rather not at all.
We do realize that men like sex so much that women's ability to get work could depend on her willingness to comply. This is one of the greatest problems in the world of all time. The fact that we have access to contraception in the west helps, but it doesn't help those women who do not wish to serve men in this way, or who cannot, or who want to but won't for whatever reasons."
Dutch man tried to fire nurse who wouldn’t provide sex
Globe and Mail - Amsterdam — Reuters
Mar 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/dutch-man-tried-to-fire-nurse-who-wouldnt-provide-sex/article1497574/
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_Mar_DutchManTriedFireNurse.doc
Dutch nurses say `no' to sexual healing
Toronto Star - Amsterdam — Reuters
Mar 12, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/778650--dutch-nurses-say-no-to-sexual-healing
Links updated June, 2012
The nurse took her complaint to the nurses union. The result was a campaign called “I Draw The Line Here." The union also reported the case to the police, according to an article in the Toronto Star.
As usual, I left my comments online, at the Globe and Mail article. There were a lot of nonsense comments, and a lot from men who seemed to have the same attitude as the Dutch man. Not a lot of analysis, otherwise. I shall include an excerpt of what I wrote, and would welcome comments from readers with their own perspectives.
" . . . what you will find is that some women are catering to the needs of the men who ask/expect/pay for it. There are some women in every workplace who have no problem doing this kind of work. And they probably have no trouble finding work in their area when they want it, just as you say - health care workers too, who provide sexual relief for men. I would think that any woman who gets that close to the physical aspect of caring for male patients - such as massage therapy, too - might get more advances that women who don't work in such areas.
If these male patients are requesting sexual relief from female workers, I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't asking it from female patients too, or anybody they can get away with asking. That is traditional behaviour for men, after all. Just ask women. What is problematic, and what this article is getting at, is that women shouldn't be expected to do this kind of work. Men shouldn't expect that all women are keen on serving them sexually. Or even reluctantly. Some women would rather not at all.
We do realize that men like sex so much that women's ability to get work could depend on her willingness to comply. This is one of the greatest problems in the world of all time. The fact that we have access to contraception in the west helps, but it doesn't help those women who do not wish to serve men in this way, or who cannot, or who want to but won't for whatever reasons."
Dutch man tried to fire nurse who wouldn’t provide sex
Globe and Mail - Amsterdam — Reuters
Mar 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/dutch-man-tried-to-fire-nurse-who-wouldnt-provide-sex/article1497574/
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_Mar_DutchManTriedFireNurse.doc
Dutch nurses say `no' to sexual healing
Toronto Star - Amsterdam — Reuters
Mar 12, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/778650--dutch-nurses-say-no-to-sexual-healing
Links updated June, 2012
22 October 2009
PhD university students: incomplete degrees
Updated May, 2012
In ‘Doctoring the System, 2009, Tara Brabazon makes a list of ten ideas that she believes will create an atmosphere conducive to doctoral students’ completing their degrees and provide valuable information for students, professors, and administration. In general, it appears to be a list that combines both individual traits and the kind that are more about society itself - the structure of the organization and the people in it.
In Item 4, Orientation, Brazabon makes a point of listing “characteristics” of students who didn’t finish their degrees. At the same time, she says that “simply because a student showed one or two of these behavioural markers did not mean they would be unsuccessful.” However, the list of signs itself is a combination of character traits and social circumstances, not solely characteristics of the student alone, so calling it that is not accurate. Perhaps different terms other than ‘characteristics’ and ‘behavioural markers’ could be used, as these imply that the items in the list arise from within the student, are internal to the student, and did not occur due to some event or circumstances nothing to do with the student, or are more about the student being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Having such a list makes it easier for the university to place the blame for an incomplete degree on the student rather than looking at other circumstances within the university or related to the thesis supervision itself. This is Brazabon’s list (from Item 4):
change of supervision, suspension, intellectual isolation, movement from full-time to part-time enrolment, irregular meetings with a supervisor, returning to study after a long break, an unsupportive partner or employer and a changing family situation, such as divorce or bereavement (Doctoring the System, 2009).
These may be signs of problems for the student in the future, but they are not characteristics of the student her or himself. A change of supervision may happen because the original supervisor turned out not to be the best for the student’s research, if their knowledge or theoretical approach differed too much from the student’s, for example. Changing from full-time to part-time could be a result of not being able to afford the tuition fees and needing to find work.
Seeing going from full-time to part-time as a character flaw is not helpful, though considering it a socioeconomic one would be. Furthermore, if meetings with their supervisor are irregular, that could be a problem with their working relationship, not simply the student not bothering anymore. Supervisors are human beings too. And while a changing family situation can be temporarily disruptive, for either student or supervisor, it doesn’t have to mean the end. In fact, older students, returning after a long break, are often more committed to getting their degree than younger one working on their first.
I am wondering if there are any statistics on these ideas, or if Brabazock is trying to use a commonsense approach.
The fact that research can be controversial, and in any case could well be political, has not been addressed in the article. Besides the research itself, the students themselves are political subjects immersed in a political environment, where race or nationality, and sex and sexuality are among the sources of conflict that can affect the completion of the research thesis. Worse yet, the decision to go forward with the research my be completely out of the control of the students themselves.
Women’s studies, and other groups vying for power in an environment known for its scarce resources can lead to university not being a pleasant place, without the necessary support, financial and otherwise. I agree with the distinction made by one of the commenters, Paul Davies, that being deemed withdrawn is not the same as a candidate being failed or pushed out. But the consequences can be the same when the ‘deemed withdrawn’ student cannot offer an adequate explanation for potential employers or other universities when applying for jobs or to grad school. An incomplete degree gives the impression that the student was incapable of doing the work or had personality problems, or if the reason given was lack of funding, then it appears as though the withdrawn student either lacked ability or their proposed research was not worthwhile. I'm not sure that the consequences of letting a student down are fully realized by those involved. The results can be devastating and life-changing, to be treated in this manner and left to struggle on with a damaged reputation.
Professors might take this decision thoughtlessly, to end a supervisory relationship for the wrong reasons, perhaps thinking it won’t make any difference. For example, if a student was accepted to enter a PhD program but had not quite finished the dissertation for the MA degree - a requirement in Canada but not in the UK, I understand) - the MA research supervisor may simply decide to quit, not bothering to finish up the research and the defense of it so the student has the MA in hand. Move ahead a few months, and the new university discovers that the PhD never got the MA and isn’t going to. This affects their perception of the student, possibly to the extent that they decide this is one student to let go – by withdrawing support and making it difficult to continue.
If, some time in the near future, the original supervisor realizes he made an error in judgement, and permits the student (now not doing a PhD or able to get work) to complete the MA degree and defend the dissertation research, does that absolve him of any responsibility in the effects to the student of not achieving the MA at the appropriate time in the timeline? If not getting it resulted in the student being pushed out of the PhD program in the next university, so several years later the student finally has the MA degree, but is now past the half-century mark in terms of life cycle, and has gaps in resume and an incomplete PhD, whose responsibility is that?
This story illustrates the concept of pop psychology known as the downward spiral. It explains how a person’s life can start to go downhill, and other people’s mistakes and decisions can contribute towards further spiraling down. In the same way, someone doing well in education and at work can experience the upward spiral, which they would no doubt attribute to their own ability and “characteristics,” whereas the reality is that the more they move upwards, the more likely it is that people will be nice to them, giving them things, access to more resources, and better jobs.
How do people find meaning in life after such adversity, not to mention fulfillment and the chance to contribute to society, especially when their experiences are of the kind many would rather not hear about, or their circumstances don’t appear to be worthwhile trying to improve? Fewer choices and options to reinvent one’s life, as well as limited resources and being on the wrong side of fifty can make it far more difficult than it would be for others.
The article by Tara Brabazon discusses far more than this, but my focus has been only on the one item. See the article, and many insightful comments on the THE page.
Doctoring the system
By Tara Brabazon
THE (Times Higher Education) UK
Oct 22, 2009
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=408733
In ‘Doctoring the System, 2009, Tara Brabazon makes a list of ten ideas that she believes will create an atmosphere conducive to doctoral students’ completing their degrees and provide valuable information for students, professors, and administration. In general, it appears to be a list that combines both individual traits and the kind that are more about society itself - the structure of the organization and the people in it.
In Item 4, Orientation, Brazabon makes a point of listing “characteristics” of students who didn’t finish their degrees. At the same time, she says that “simply because a student showed one or two of these behavioural markers did not mean they would be unsuccessful.” However, the list of signs itself is a combination of character traits and social circumstances, not solely characteristics of the student alone, so calling it that is not accurate. Perhaps different terms other than ‘characteristics’ and ‘behavioural markers’ could be used, as these imply that the items in the list arise from within the student, are internal to the student, and did not occur due to some event or circumstances nothing to do with the student, or are more about the student being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Having such a list makes it easier for the university to place the blame for an incomplete degree on the student rather than looking at other circumstances within the university or related to the thesis supervision itself. This is Brazabon’s list (from Item 4):
change of supervision, suspension, intellectual isolation, movement from full-time to part-time enrolment, irregular meetings with a supervisor, returning to study after a long break, an unsupportive partner or employer and a changing family situation, such as divorce or bereavement (Doctoring the System, 2009).
These may be signs of problems for the student in the future, but they are not characteristics of the student her or himself. A change of supervision may happen because the original supervisor turned out not to be the best for the student’s research, if their knowledge or theoretical approach differed too much from the student’s, for example. Changing from full-time to part-time could be a result of not being able to afford the tuition fees and needing to find work.
Seeing going from full-time to part-time as a character flaw is not helpful, though considering it a socioeconomic one would be. Furthermore, if meetings with their supervisor are irregular, that could be a problem with their working relationship, not simply the student not bothering anymore. Supervisors are human beings too. And while a changing family situation can be temporarily disruptive, for either student or supervisor, it doesn’t have to mean the end. In fact, older students, returning after a long break, are often more committed to getting their degree than younger one working on their first.
I am wondering if there are any statistics on these ideas, or if Brabazock is trying to use a commonsense approach.
The fact that research can be controversial, and in any case could well be political, has not been addressed in the article. Besides the research itself, the students themselves are political subjects immersed in a political environment, where race or nationality, and sex and sexuality are among the sources of conflict that can affect the completion of the research thesis. Worse yet, the decision to go forward with the research my be completely out of the control of the students themselves.
Women’s studies, and other groups vying for power in an environment known for its scarce resources can lead to university not being a pleasant place, without the necessary support, financial and otherwise. I agree with the distinction made by one of the commenters, Paul Davies, that being deemed withdrawn is not the same as a candidate being failed or pushed out. But the consequences can be the same when the ‘deemed withdrawn’ student cannot offer an adequate explanation for potential employers or other universities when applying for jobs or to grad school. An incomplete degree gives the impression that the student was incapable of doing the work or had personality problems, or if the reason given was lack of funding, then it appears as though the withdrawn student either lacked ability or their proposed research was not worthwhile. I'm not sure that the consequences of letting a student down are fully realized by those involved. The results can be devastating and life-changing, to be treated in this manner and left to struggle on with a damaged reputation.
Professors might take this decision thoughtlessly, to end a supervisory relationship for the wrong reasons, perhaps thinking it won’t make any difference. For example, if a student was accepted to enter a PhD program but had not quite finished the dissertation for the MA degree - a requirement in Canada but not in the UK, I understand) - the MA research supervisor may simply decide to quit, not bothering to finish up the research and the defense of it so the student has the MA in hand. Move ahead a few months, and the new university discovers that the PhD never got the MA and isn’t going to. This affects their perception of the student, possibly to the extent that they decide this is one student to let go – by withdrawing support and making it difficult to continue.
If, some time in the near future, the original supervisor realizes he made an error in judgement, and permits the student (now not doing a PhD or able to get work) to complete the MA degree and defend the dissertation research, does that absolve him of any responsibility in the effects to the student of not achieving the MA at the appropriate time in the timeline? If not getting it resulted in the student being pushed out of the PhD program in the next university, so several years later the student finally has the MA degree, but is now past the half-century mark in terms of life cycle, and has gaps in resume and an incomplete PhD, whose responsibility is that?
This story illustrates the concept of pop psychology known as the downward spiral. It explains how a person’s life can start to go downhill, and other people’s mistakes and decisions can contribute towards further spiraling down. In the same way, someone doing well in education and at work can experience the upward spiral, which they would no doubt attribute to their own ability and “characteristics,” whereas the reality is that the more they move upwards, the more likely it is that people will be nice to them, giving them things, access to more resources, and better jobs.
How do people find meaning in life after such adversity, not to mention fulfillment and the chance to contribute to society, especially when their experiences are of the kind many would rather not hear about, or their circumstances don’t appear to be worthwhile trying to improve? Fewer choices and options to reinvent one’s life, as well as limited resources and being on the wrong side of fifty can make it far more difficult than it would be for others.
The article by Tara Brabazon discusses far more than this, but my focus has been only on the one item. See the article, and many insightful comments on the THE page.
Doctoring the system
By Tara Brabazon
THE (Times Higher Education) UK
Oct 22, 2009
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=408733
5 August 2009
Sexuality, motherhood, and aging: Marilyn Monroe
Revised June, 2012
Marilyn Monroe, had she lived, would now be in her eighties. Marilyn, aka Norma Jeane Mortenson (Baker) was born on June 1, 1926 in Los Angeles, California, less than a year after Margaret Thatcher was born! I don’t think Thatcher is relevant to Marilyn’s story, but it’s quite a contrast! Marilyn died 50 years ago this year, 2012, (Aug 5, 1962) at her Brentwood, California home. She was 36 years old.
Marilyn didn’t have children of her own, although she did get pregnant, says Lisa Manterfield in ‘Life without baby,’ 2011). She had wanted children, and adopted children too, but her career was also important to her. This was at a time when reliable birth control in the form of ‘the pill’ wasn’t available.
Fast-track ahead, and psychoanalyst Corinne Maier, in her best-seller, ‘No Kids: 40 Good Reasons’ (2009), takes a humorous look at her own life with children, and at the choices people are making today, seeing them as reasonable alternatives (see Doug Saunder’s article, 'I really regret it. I really regret’, 2007, 2009). As Melanie Notkin writes, more women today are choosing to remain childless, as well as seeking alternatives to a situation not of their choosing (see Truth about childless women, 2011).
Hilary Mantel presents her views on powerful, ordinary older women, recalled from her childhood, in the article ‘Women over 50 – the invisible generation,’ 2009). A brief mention of Margaret Thatcher is included. One wonders, though, would Marilyn have aged well?
Ayn Rand wrote ‘Through your most grievous fault’ – a tribute to Marilyn - within two weeks of Marilyn’s death. In it, she says,
“Envy is the only name she could find for the monstrous thing she faced, but it was much worse than envy: it was the profound hatred of life, of success and of all human values, felt by a certain kind of mediocrity--the kind who feels pleasure on hearing about a stranger's misfortune. It was hatred of the good for being the good--hatred of ability, of beauty, of honesty, of earnestness, of achievement and, above all, of human joy” (Marilyn Monroe: Through Your Most Grievous Fault, 1962).
That was very kind of Rand to say all that, but it doesn’t seem very objective. I’m quite sure that Marilyn’s way of life, projecting herself as a sexual, sensual woman, could well have been the reason some people didn’t approve of her. Calling it ‘envy’ just doesn’t seem to catch the significance of any disapproval she experienced. Perhaps Rand was thinking of her own accomplishments, and criticism of them when she spoke. The idea of envy certainly takes away from the more complex reasons people have for being critical of someone’s views or lifestyle.
The song "Candle in the Wind," originally written in 1972 by Elton John and Bernie Taupin, in honour of Marilyn Monroe, is performed by Elton John here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvux60fqNU8 (courtesy of 'libysin', You Tube). Also see tribute to Marilyn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IotIPev5NBY&feature=related (courtesy of Danielle625, You Tube).
Life Without Baby: Marilyn Monroe
By Lisa Manterfield
Lifewithoutbaby.com
Mar 29, 2011
http://lifewithoutbaby.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/marilyn-monroe/
No Kids: 40 Good Reasons Not To Have Children (also published as ‘No Kid 40 Raisons De Ne Pas Avoir Enfant’, 2007)
By Corinne Maier
McClelland & Stewart
2009
On This Day: 5th August 1962: Marilyn Monroe found dead
On this Day, 1950 - 2005
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/5/newsid_2657000/2657289.stm
The Truth About Childless Women
By Melanie Notkin
Huffington Post
July 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanie-notkin/childless-women_b_894535.html
Women over 50 – the invisible generation
By Hilary Mantel
The Guardian
Aug 4, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/04/hilary-mantel-older-women
Marilyn Monroe: Through Your Most Grievous Fault
By Ayn Rand
Capitalism Magazine
July 22, 2003
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3247
'I really regret it. I really regret having children'
By Doug Saunders
Globe and Mail
originally published Sept 2007, last updated Jul 29, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/i-really-regret-it-i-really-regret-having-children/article784948/
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2007_Sept_IReallyRegretHavingChildren.doc
links updated June 2012
Marilyn Monroe, had she lived, would now be in her eighties. Marilyn, aka Norma Jeane Mortenson (Baker) was born on June 1, 1926 in Los Angeles, California, less than a year after Margaret Thatcher was born! I don’t think Thatcher is relevant to Marilyn’s story, but it’s quite a contrast! Marilyn died 50 years ago this year, 2012, (Aug 5, 1962) at her Brentwood, California home. She was 36 years old.
Marilyn didn’t have children of her own, although she did get pregnant, says Lisa Manterfield in ‘Life without baby,’ 2011). She had wanted children, and adopted children too, but her career was also important to her. This was at a time when reliable birth control in the form of ‘the pill’ wasn’t available.
Fast-track ahead, and psychoanalyst Corinne Maier, in her best-seller, ‘No Kids: 40 Good Reasons’ (2009), takes a humorous look at her own life with children, and at the choices people are making today, seeing them as reasonable alternatives (see Doug Saunder’s article, 'I really regret it. I really regret’, 2007, 2009). As Melanie Notkin writes, more women today are choosing to remain childless, as well as seeking alternatives to a situation not of their choosing (see Truth about childless women, 2011).
Hilary Mantel presents her views on powerful, ordinary older women, recalled from her childhood, in the article ‘Women over 50 – the invisible generation,’ 2009). A brief mention of Margaret Thatcher is included. One wonders, though, would Marilyn have aged well?
Ayn Rand wrote ‘Through your most grievous fault’ – a tribute to Marilyn - within two weeks of Marilyn’s death. In it, she says,
“Envy is the only name she could find for the monstrous thing she faced, but it was much worse than envy: it was the profound hatred of life, of success and of all human values, felt by a certain kind of mediocrity--the kind who feels pleasure on hearing about a stranger's misfortune. It was hatred of the good for being the good--hatred of ability, of beauty, of honesty, of earnestness, of achievement and, above all, of human joy” (Marilyn Monroe: Through Your Most Grievous Fault, 1962).
That was very kind of Rand to say all that, but it doesn’t seem very objective. I’m quite sure that Marilyn’s way of life, projecting herself as a sexual, sensual woman, could well have been the reason some people didn’t approve of her. Calling it ‘envy’ just doesn’t seem to catch the significance of any disapproval she experienced. Perhaps Rand was thinking of her own accomplishments, and criticism of them when she spoke. The idea of envy certainly takes away from the more complex reasons people have for being critical of someone’s views or lifestyle.
The song "Candle in the Wind," originally written in 1972 by Elton John and Bernie Taupin, in honour of Marilyn Monroe, is performed by Elton John here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvux60fqNU8 (courtesy of 'libysin', You Tube). Also see tribute to Marilyn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IotIPev5NBY&feature=related (courtesy of Danielle625, You Tube).
Life Without Baby: Marilyn Monroe
By Lisa Manterfield
Lifewithoutbaby.com
Mar 29, 2011
http://lifewithoutbaby.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/marilyn-monroe/
No Kids: 40 Good Reasons Not To Have Children (also published as ‘No Kid 40 Raisons De Ne Pas Avoir Enfant’, 2007)
By Corinne Maier
McClelland & Stewart
2009
On This Day: 5th August 1962: Marilyn Monroe found dead
On this Day, 1950 - 2005
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/5/newsid_2657000/2657289.stm
The Truth About Childless Women
By Melanie Notkin
Huffington Post
July 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanie-notkin/childless-women_b_894535.html
Women over 50 – the invisible generation
By Hilary Mantel
The Guardian
Aug 4, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/04/hilary-mantel-older-women
Marilyn Monroe: Through Your Most Grievous Fault
By Ayn Rand
Capitalism Magazine
July 22, 2003
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3247
'I really regret it. I really regret having children'
By Doug Saunders
Globe and Mail
originally published Sept 2007, last updated Jul 29, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/i-really-regret-it-i-really-regret-having-children/article784948/
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2007_Sept_IReallyRegretHavingChildren.doc
links updated June 2012
26 April 2009
Sexuality and ‘The Purity Myth’ by Jessica Valenti
An short excerpt from the book The Purity Myth appeared yesterday on Parentcentral.com on the Toronto Star pages online. The subheading was ‘The author of a new book argues against purity cults’, and that is what Jessica Valenti does, in this promotion of her book. How does such tripe get included in the parents’ section of the Toronto Star? Do parents realize that this author is promoting promiscuity in this piece, and possibly within the entire book if this is any indication of what it’s about?
Approaching this subject in a black-and-white manner, only seeing two perspectives, she leaves readers with the suggestion that purity and virginity are old-fashioned and destructive towards young women’s sense of themselves, sexually. Attempting to turn readers (parents?) against the idea of purity and virginity is not a rational approach to the serious topic of young women’s sexuality. It’s part of it, but it isn’t the main problem. Making virginity the problem suggests to readers that the only alternative is so-called sexual ‘freedom,’ a stance I find damaging for girls/women and to society, maybe more so than the idea that women should remain pure. My response to the piece submitted online follows:
The double standard of gender differences in sexuality
Jessica Valenti has set up two polar opposites in this excerpt, creating a false sense of what the problems are. It's popular now to 'be sexual', as she says, although I wonder how much of the 'being sexual' is really that, for many young women out of touch with their own bodies. Valenti claims that "The sexual double standard is alive and well, and it's irrevocably damaging young women," but the problem actually is that feminists, in their attempt to do away with the double standard, have put women in the position of having to pretend there is no double 'standard', if standard is the right word.
Men's sexuality IS different than women's. Men have a different physical body, different biology, different hormones, while the standard men (and women) are led to believe in is that women are the same as men, sexually, and are, or should be, willing and able to have sex, without a relationship, for the sake of fun and sexual release only. Women are rewarded for perpetuating that tradition.
How 'virginity' is a dangerous idea
Jessica Valenti
Parentcentral.ca (Toronto Star)
Apr 25, 2009
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/623495
Approaching this subject in a black-and-white manner, only seeing two perspectives, she leaves readers with the suggestion that purity and virginity are old-fashioned and destructive towards young women’s sense of themselves, sexually. Attempting to turn readers (parents?) against the idea of purity and virginity is not a rational approach to the serious topic of young women’s sexuality. It’s part of it, but it isn’t the main problem. Making virginity the problem suggests to readers that the only alternative is so-called sexual ‘freedom,’ a stance I find damaging for girls/women and to society, maybe more so than the idea that women should remain pure. My response to the piece submitted online follows:
The double standard of gender differences in sexuality
Jessica Valenti has set up two polar opposites in this excerpt, creating a false sense of what the problems are. It's popular now to 'be sexual', as she says, although I wonder how much of the 'being sexual' is really that, for many young women out of touch with their own bodies. Valenti claims that "The sexual double standard is alive and well, and it's irrevocably damaging young women," but the problem actually is that feminists, in their attempt to do away with the double standard, have put women in the position of having to pretend there is no double 'standard', if standard is the right word.
Men's sexuality IS different than women's. Men have a different physical body, different biology, different hormones, while the standard men (and women) are led to believe in is that women are the same as men, sexually, and are, or should be, willing and able to have sex, without a relationship, for the sake of fun and sexual release only. Women are rewarded for perpetuating that tradition.
How 'virginity' is a dangerous idea
Jessica Valenti
Parentcentral.ca (Toronto Star)
Apr 25, 2009
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/623495
21 January 2009
Censorship: The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
This situation seem so contrived! Based on one complaint, by one person, the appropriateness of the book A Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, is to be investigated by the school board. Surely it's not the first time someone has 'complained' about it, or laid a complaint. Most formal complaints to school boards wouldn't receive the attention this book has, nor would the man who laid the complaint usually receive so much attention. Are the complaints procedures that public, rather than internal to the organization? Secretaries in such organizations are usually very good at protecting their bosses. And others in the organization are usually very good at covering up what they want covered up. So I suggest that this complaint, formal or otherwise, was permitted to surface because it was the right time and the right place, and the right person doing the complaining.
In this case, the complainant is a man, and he has three sons for whose lives he obviously takes much responsibiity. There's nothing like an all-male family, one with an absent female presence, to reinforce the main claim of the Handmaid's Tale, published over 20 years ago, that an oppressive gender division was in the works for the future, and that it would be men doing the oppressing. At the same time, attention would be deflected from the idea that it's not really gender that is the problem in the world today, it is class. For the most part, women in the book, The Handmaid's Tale, were sorted according to their social class, and one could probably say that marital status was just as important, just as it is today. Men's lives, in the book, were also inhibited and controlled, although just how much they would have felt their sexual situation intolerable, perhaps dependent on class status, is debatable. Having to have sex with another women lying between his wife's legs just might have appealed to some of these fictional characters, even if they were forced to deny it to conform to society's norms.
Is it denial that leads the main speaker to speak of unecessary brutality and sexism, or do his views, and the fact that he is the speaker, serve a political purpose? Robert Edwards is not a popular person at the current time, not among censorship objectors, lovers of Atwood or, apparently, feminists. But someone has allowed this case to surface. Is it really against feminists' interests to have him speak out so openly against the book? He has managed to distract readers from thinking about class differences and alliances in the book itself, and also to distract them from thinking about social class in society today. Making a book such as this appear unworthy for his sons to read, he surely will endear himself to feminists everywhere, who stand to benefit from the false notion that, because of this book our citizens are more aware of the negative aspects of such patriarchal, controlling attitudes in society.
It's been a long time since I read the book, while a student at university, and at the time I was both impressed and appalled at the suggestions that came through the reading of it. I see that Atwood's fictional storyline displayed some truth, that the control of sexuality would be a large part of domination in society in the future, as it always has, in some way or other, although how much married women would really regret missing out on motherhood in real life is questionable. In our world today, careers for women are considered practically essential, for fulfillment in life and independence. So, while Robert Edwards seems to be taking a stand against feminism and the liberated female writings of Margaret Atwood, I wonder if he is actually doing feminism a favour, and if he will be rewarded for doing his bit.
Kristin Rushowy
TO Star
Atwood novel too brutal, sexist for school: parent
16 Jan 2009
http://www.thestar.com:80/article/571999
Added May, 2012
School panel backs Atwood novel
Debra Black Staff Reporter
TO Star
Feb 12 2009
http://www.thestar.com/article/586331
In this case, the complainant is a man, and he has three sons for whose lives he obviously takes much responsibiity. There's nothing like an all-male family, one with an absent female presence, to reinforce the main claim of the Handmaid's Tale, published over 20 years ago, that an oppressive gender division was in the works for the future, and that it would be men doing the oppressing. At the same time, attention would be deflected from the idea that it's not really gender that is the problem in the world today, it is class. For the most part, women in the book, The Handmaid's Tale, were sorted according to their social class, and one could probably say that marital status was just as important, just as it is today. Men's lives, in the book, were also inhibited and controlled, although just how much they would have felt their sexual situation intolerable, perhaps dependent on class status, is debatable. Having to have sex with another women lying between his wife's legs just might have appealed to some of these fictional characters, even if they were forced to deny it to conform to society's norms.
Is it denial that leads the main speaker to speak of unecessary brutality and sexism, or do his views, and the fact that he is the speaker, serve a political purpose? Robert Edwards is not a popular person at the current time, not among censorship objectors, lovers of Atwood or, apparently, feminists. But someone has allowed this case to surface. Is it really against feminists' interests to have him speak out so openly against the book? He has managed to distract readers from thinking about class differences and alliances in the book itself, and also to distract them from thinking about social class in society today. Making a book such as this appear unworthy for his sons to read, he surely will endear himself to feminists everywhere, who stand to benefit from the false notion that, because of this book our citizens are more aware of the negative aspects of such patriarchal, controlling attitudes in society.
It's been a long time since I read the book, while a student at university, and at the time I was both impressed and appalled at the suggestions that came through the reading of it. I see that Atwood's fictional storyline displayed some truth, that the control of sexuality would be a large part of domination in society in the future, as it always has, in some way or other, although how much married women would really regret missing out on motherhood in real life is questionable. In our world today, careers for women are considered practically essential, for fulfillment in life and independence. So, while Robert Edwards seems to be taking a stand against feminism and the liberated female writings of Margaret Atwood, I wonder if he is actually doing feminism a favour, and if he will be rewarded for doing his bit.
Kristin Rushowy
TO Star
Atwood novel too brutal, sexist for school: parent
16 Jan 2009
http://www.thestar.com:80/article/571999
Added May, 2012
School panel backs Atwood novel
Debra Black Staff Reporter
TO Star
Feb 12 2009
http://www.thestar.com/article/586331
2 May 2008
British comedian Johnny Vegas accused of crossing the line sexually
Johnny Vegas caused a furor the other day when he apparently went over the line in his stage show, leading to discomfort among the audience and to the woman he invited onto the stage. Bruce Dessau has commented on the behaviour, Evening Standard Apr 29, and part of my response is directed towards this: http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html .
I have some questions of my own, and some thoughts on all this. Were these the actions of a man experiencing the power of his position of authority, and did it go to his head? Did he ‘almost’ go over the edge intentionally - making it a question of poor judgement, or was this unintentional, his omnipotent self taking matters too far? I don’t see that much has come of this. Perhaps the stalwart admonition by Mary O'Hara (Guardian, May 1: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html ), naming it sexual assault, has led to this incident being covered up.
Sexual assault is a serious accusation to make, and the response to such a claim would have to be to either cover it up or deal with it. And who wants to do that? It’s too bad women have to jump in and make claims which on one level seem to be accusations, but on another are actually a way of getting the authorities to back off from investigating further. No one wants to be responsible for Johnny Vegas losing his career, and if feminist interference makes it an either/or situation, then better drop it altogether. Don’t risk people actually giving this situation some real thought. They might actually learn something about masculinity, power, and the grey area of sexuality, for men and for women. It’s not always easy for a woman to say No. Her upbringing, traditional norms, and simply being in a situation where she believes no harm will come to her because so many are watching, will all influence her way of responding to the situation. When she came off stage, finally, and was said to be looking as though she enjoyed the experience, could that have been euphoria at having escaped unharmed, relief that it was over, as well as feelings of excitement that she had been involved in this act on stage with the famous (infamous?) Johnny Vegas?
I wonder if reality television could have had an influence on Johnny’s behaviour, if this incident really did happen, having seen some of the actions other celebrities have engaged in, ‘on stage’ in Big Brother’s house – George Galloway, for one, and some sexual antics of other participants. Where does acting stop and the real person take over? Is access to power an excuse for behaving badly on stage? If Vegas's career is based on taking things to the edge, should some leeway be given to this error in judgement or intentional overstepping of power, if that's what happened? Is making an accusation in a national newspaper also a misuse of power? Should an article doing so be seen as an error in judgement on the part of the journalist or an intentional use of power?
Added Apr 20, 2012
Mary O’Hara did revise her article, changing the title and adding an additional paragraph, as follows:
* Johnny Vegas complained about this article. His solicitors have been in contact with the young woman from the audience who has told them that she went along with the joke willingly and did not feel intimidated, scared or abused during this performance.
My thoughts on this, four years later: When it comes to sexual matters, men’s mistakes in crossing boundaries or using their power to excess is often overlooked or covered up. It’s fairly normal behaviour for men, as they deal with their own sense of masculinity in a world that often denies them. As long as they have power – resources, male support or female support, they can get a second chance, and maybe more than that. It’s problematic that the women who support them the most, seeing their behaviour as nothing more than a storm in a teacup or even simply hilarious, can’t see any farther than that, or refuse to look any deeper. I know I wouldn’t have liked his behaviour, especially if it were done to me.
But this was just a comedy show, not as if it were a colleague or employer putting on a display of macho comedy and expecting admiration from all sides for it. This probably didn’t result in anyone being harassed for speaking out, or losing out on a career, and having to move away.
On the other hand, could the incident be compared to the actions of a medical doctor or a teacher, overstepping the bounds of his profession and sexualizing the doctor/patient (or teacher/student) relationship? As with the Johnny Vegas incident, there was a situation of unequal power, whereby the authority figure had the power to manipulate the other, asking her to put her trust in him while he performed certain actions, for reasons connected to the purpose of the interaction. At what point does the audience member on stage refuse to interact any more, while the eyes of the audience are upon her. Not wanting to make a scene, not wanting to appear naïve or lacking in humour, the girl may simply have waited it out, smiling, pretending it was all just fine. Aren’t there many occasions in life when women do just that – pretend it’s okay, watching to see what the others say or do, not really knowing, not wanting to make a fuss, but just conforming?
Did Johnny Vegas over-step the comedy mark?
By Colin Bostock-Smith
First Post
May 1, 2008
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/32522,features,did-johnny-vegas-overstep-the-comedy-mark not working
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/BostockSmithDidJohnnyVegas.doc
Johnny Vegas: A Gig Too Far?
By Bruce Dessau, Comedy Blog
Evening Standard Blogs
Apr 29, 2008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2008_Apr_BruceDessauAGigTooFar.doc
See article comments at http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html
Johnny Vegas at the Bloomsbury theatre* (with note added)
originally titled ‘When is Sexual Assault Funny’
By Mary O'Hara
The Guardian
May 1, 2008
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html link not working
with new title, introduction and note added: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/01/gender.comedy
Links updated Apr 20, 2012
I have some questions of my own, and some thoughts on all this. Were these the actions of a man experiencing the power of his position of authority, and did it go to his head? Did he ‘almost’ go over the edge intentionally - making it a question of poor judgement, or was this unintentional, his omnipotent self taking matters too far? I don’t see that much has come of this. Perhaps the stalwart admonition by Mary O'Hara (Guardian, May 1: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html ), naming it sexual assault, has led to this incident being covered up.
Sexual assault is a serious accusation to make, and the response to such a claim would have to be to either cover it up or deal with it. And who wants to do that? It’s too bad women have to jump in and make claims which on one level seem to be accusations, but on another are actually a way of getting the authorities to back off from investigating further. No one wants to be responsible for Johnny Vegas losing his career, and if feminist interference makes it an either/or situation, then better drop it altogether. Don’t risk people actually giving this situation some real thought. They might actually learn something about masculinity, power, and the grey area of sexuality, for men and for women. It’s not always easy for a woman to say No. Her upbringing, traditional norms, and simply being in a situation where she believes no harm will come to her because so many are watching, will all influence her way of responding to the situation. When she came off stage, finally, and was said to be looking as though she enjoyed the experience, could that have been euphoria at having escaped unharmed, relief that it was over, as well as feelings of excitement that she had been involved in this act on stage with the famous (infamous?) Johnny Vegas?
I wonder if reality television could have had an influence on Johnny’s behaviour, if this incident really did happen, having seen some of the actions other celebrities have engaged in, ‘on stage’ in Big Brother’s house – George Galloway, for one, and some sexual antics of other participants. Where does acting stop and the real person take over? Is access to power an excuse for behaving badly on stage? If Vegas's career is based on taking things to the edge, should some leeway be given to this error in judgement or intentional overstepping of power, if that's what happened? Is making an accusation in a national newspaper also a misuse of power? Should an article doing so be seen as an error in judgement on the part of the journalist or an intentional use of power?
Added Apr 20, 2012
Mary O’Hara did revise her article, changing the title and adding an additional paragraph, as follows:
* Johnny Vegas complained about this article. His solicitors have been in contact with the young woman from the audience who has told them that she went along with the joke willingly and did not feel intimidated, scared or abused during this performance.
My thoughts on this, four years later: When it comes to sexual matters, men’s mistakes in crossing boundaries or using their power to excess is often overlooked or covered up. It’s fairly normal behaviour for men, as they deal with their own sense of masculinity in a world that often denies them. As long as they have power – resources, male support or female support, they can get a second chance, and maybe more than that. It’s problematic that the women who support them the most, seeing their behaviour as nothing more than a storm in a teacup or even simply hilarious, can’t see any farther than that, or refuse to look any deeper. I know I wouldn’t have liked his behaviour, especially if it were done to me.
But this was just a comedy show, not as if it were a colleague or employer putting on a display of macho comedy and expecting admiration from all sides for it. This probably didn’t result in anyone being harassed for speaking out, or losing out on a career, and having to move away.
On the other hand, could the incident be compared to the actions of a medical doctor or a teacher, overstepping the bounds of his profession and sexualizing the doctor/patient (or teacher/student) relationship? As with the Johnny Vegas incident, there was a situation of unequal power, whereby the authority figure had the power to manipulate the other, asking her to put her trust in him while he performed certain actions, for reasons connected to the purpose of the interaction. At what point does the audience member on stage refuse to interact any more, while the eyes of the audience are upon her. Not wanting to make a scene, not wanting to appear naïve or lacking in humour, the girl may simply have waited it out, smiling, pretending it was all just fine. Aren’t there many occasions in life when women do just that – pretend it’s okay, watching to see what the others say or do, not really knowing, not wanting to make a fuss, but just conforming?
Did Johnny Vegas over-step the comedy mark?
By Colin Bostock-Smith
First Post
May 1, 2008
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/32522,features,did-johnny-vegas-overstep-the-comedy-mark not working
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/BostockSmithDidJohnnyVegas.doc
Johnny Vegas: A Gig Too Far?
By Bruce Dessau, Comedy Blog
Evening Standard Blogs
Apr 29, 2008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2008_Apr_BruceDessauAGigTooFar.doc
See article comments at http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html
Johnny Vegas at the Bloomsbury theatre* (with note added)
originally titled ‘When is Sexual Assault Funny’
By Mary O'Hara
The Guardian
May 1, 2008
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html link not working
with new title, introduction and note added: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/01/gender.comedy
Links updated Apr 20, 2012
6 January 2007
Femininity and Womanhood: the Ashley Treatment
In today's article in The Telegraph by Caroline Davies, "I want my girl to have the 'Ashley treatment'" (06/01/07), young Katie's mother, in Britain, reflects on the situation of Ashley from Seattle, the nine-year old with the condition called 'static encephalopathy.'
I can understand the problem of size and weight, but I would be concerned about the idea of giving a hysterectomy for the reasons presented in the article. Okay, so Katie wouldn't understand what was happening when she menstruated, but she would get used to it, just as a person gets used to other bodily functions. Was it not also uncomfortable and a nuisance when her baby teeth started coming out and new teeth began growing in? Surely the indignity of going to a dentist, or other medical interventions, are something the health care provider or caregiver has to come to terms with. Pain at this time of the month, during menstruation, isn't something all girls experience, so I wonder if the parents/caregivers' know for sure this something she will always experience. I can understand a hysterectomy being performed for the sake of convenience, since menstruation is a nuisance, but I question the reasons given here for having it done. It doesn't seem entirely rational or even fair in some ways, and might be detrimental to the way such a normal happening could be viewed by girls growing up who are reading about this. Is life better when one can remain a child and not have to experience the annoyances and challenges that 'growing up' present? In part this is about quality of life and the experience of life. If one is having to live a restricted life, is it preferable to remain a child forever or to experience something of what it means to be a woman? I have refrained from making any comments about sexuality, though an implied consequence of the proposed hysterectomy and possible hormone treatment would be to have sexuality no longer an issue.
I want my girl to have the 'Ashley treatment'
By Caroline Davies
Telegraph
6 January, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1538671/I-want-my-girl-to-have-the-Ashley-treatment.html
Link updated April 18, 2012
I can understand the problem of size and weight, but I would be concerned about the idea of giving a hysterectomy for the reasons presented in the article. Okay, so Katie wouldn't understand what was happening when she menstruated, but she would get used to it, just as a person gets used to other bodily functions. Was it not also uncomfortable and a nuisance when her baby teeth started coming out and new teeth began growing in? Surely the indignity of going to a dentist, or other medical interventions, are something the health care provider or caregiver has to come to terms with. Pain at this time of the month, during menstruation, isn't something all girls experience, so I wonder if the parents/caregivers' know for sure this something she will always experience. I can understand a hysterectomy being performed for the sake of convenience, since menstruation is a nuisance, but I question the reasons given here for having it done. It doesn't seem entirely rational or even fair in some ways, and might be detrimental to the way such a normal happening could be viewed by girls growing up who are reading about this. Is life better when one can remain a child and not have to experience the annoyances and challenges that 'growing up' present? In part this is about quality of life and the experience of life. If one is having to live a restricted life, is it preferable to remain a child forever or to experience something of what it means to be a woman? I have refrained from making any comments about sexuality, though an implied consequence of the proposed hysterectomy and possible hormone treatment would be to have sexuality no longer an issue.
I want my girl to have the 'Ashley treatment'
By Caroline Davies
Telegraph
6 January, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1538671/I-want-my-girl-to-have-the-Ashley-treatment.html
Link updated April 18, 2012
11 November 2006
And the aim of this campaign is . . . surely not promiscuity
Re: Condom call for young 'on pull'. BBC News. 11 Nov 2006.
While I agree that advocating the use of condoms is a wise measure, especially to prevent stds, the way this is being gone about in this BBC article is questionable. There are new sexual freedoms in society today that just weren't there 30 years ago. Although this article claims not to be advocating promiscuity, it also says,
"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom among this age group as familiar as carrying a mobile phone, lipstick or putting on a seat-belt."
So there is a dual message here, not just about STIs and condoms, but about sex itself.
If that isn't encouraging promiscuity, then what is? Practically all young people carry a mobile phone, and I would imagine most young women wear lipstick when they go clubbing. Surely, encouraging all young men and women of that age group to always carry condoms, just as they always carry their phone, could be seen as encouraging them to be promiscuous. The message is that they carry condoms EVERYWHERE, as they woud a mobile phone, and not just when they are out clubbing The wording creates an association between lipstick and sex, and between cellphones and sex, familiar objects in our world, not just when people go clubbing, but ALL THE TIME.
The following statement is from the article: "This is not about encouraging promiscuity, but saying to those who are already sexually active: sex without a condom is seriously risky, so always use one." But that does not reflect what is actually being told to young people in the rest of the article.
The aim of this article would actually seem to be to get young people to carry condoms as they would some of the most familar and well-used items they have (regardless of whether they expect or would choose to be sexually active, and regardless of whether they are going clubbing or going to work). Carry your condoms as you would your mobile phone, is the message it is giving out.
So how about this line instead:
*"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom for some men and women in this age group as familiar as eating cereal for breakfast. "*
Using this analogy might help lessen the idea that all women and men are as eager and willing to engage in sex as they are to talk on their cellphone, and might help in lessening pregnancies that come about from some kinds of sexual encounters.
Condom call for young 'on pull' BBC News 11 Nov 06
Young adults are to be urged to carry condoms when they are out "on the pull", as part of a government sexual health campaign.
It will focus on 18 to 24-year-olds. Just 20% of people in this age group say they carry condoms on a night out. continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6132822.stm
Link updated April 18, 2012
While I agree that advocating the use of condoms is a wise measure, especially to prevent stds, the way this is being gone about in this BBC article is questionable. There are new sexual freedoms in society today that just weren't there 30 years ago. Although this article claims not to be advocating promiscuity, it also says,
"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom among this age group as familiar as carrying a mobile phone, lipstick or putting on a seat-belt."
So there is a dual message here, not just about STIs and condoms, but about sex itself.
If that isn't encouraging promiscuity, then what is? Practically all young people carry a mobile phone, and I would imagine most young women wear lipstick when they go clubbing. Surely, encouraging all young men and women of that age group to always carry condoms, just as they always carry their phone, could be seen as encouraging them to be promiscuous. The message is that they carry condoms EVERYWHERE, as they woud a mobile phone, and not just when they are out clubbing The wording creates an association between lipstick and sex, and between cellphones and sex, familiar objects in our world, not just when people go clubbing, but ALL THE TIME.
The following statement is from the article: "This is not about encouraging promiscuity, but saying to those who are already sexually active: sex without a condom is seriously risky, so always use one." But that does not reflect what is actually being told to young people in the rest of the article.
The aim of this article would actually seem to be to get young people to carry condoms as they would some of the most familar and well-used items they have (regardless of whether they expect or would choose to be sexually active, and regardless of whether they are going clubbing or going to work). Carry your condoms as you would your mobile phone, is the message it is giving out.
So how about this line instead:
*"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom for some men and women in this age group as familiar as eating cereal for breakfast. "*
Using this analogy might help lessen the idea that all women and men are as eager and willing to engage in sex as they are to talk on their cellphone, and might help in lessening pregnancies that come about from some kinds of sexual encounters.
Condom call for young 'on pull' BBC News 11 Nov 06
Young adults are to be urged to carry condoms when they are out "on the pull", as part of a government sexual health campaign.
It will focus on 18 to 24-year-olds. Just 20% of people in this age group say they carry condoms on a night out. continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6132822.stm
Link updated April 18, 2012
13 January 2006
Big Brother Celebrity George Galloway MP
Britain’s 2006 Celebrity Big Brother TV programme (4th) (UK)
George Galloway is causing quite a stir in Celebrity Big Brother on Channel 4. He entered the house, along with ten others, on the evening of thursday, January 5th. It was Day 8, a week later, on Jan 12, when, apparently following Big Brother’s orders, Galloway crawled up to actress Rula Lenska, while on prime-time television, pretending to be a cat lapping up imaginary milk from her cupped hands. This controversial display might have seemed erotic to some viewers; to others, it might have been considered disgusting or offensive. Either way, it couldn't be considered a worthy depiction of a cat lapping milk. But one has to admit, these antics do place him squarely into the realm of performance Big Brother seems to prefer; it is, after, all, people relating to one another in the diverse ways they do that makes it interesting. We would have to assume that this performance was spontaneous, and that Ruth Lenska was not responsible for the actions of George Galloway. In other words, it was not planned between the two of them. Galloway is already in trouble, for not being there for his constituents, although his office is still open.
As an MP, he has taken liberties, apparently, abandoning them while he goes off for up to three weeks to be with celebrities of various kinds, all willingly exposing their personalities, including quirks and flaws, in front of the camera. For these individuals to be together for up to three weeks, never knowing whether they will be voted out during the next round (by each other and the public) or be required to stay, is just part of the indignity of the situation.
Galloway doesn’t deserve either to be seen as a laughing stock or granted respect for his cat-antics. He is simply doing what a man does. George Galloway is the first member of Parliament - the Respect party - to take part in Celebrity Big Brother.
Added April 16, 2012
Videos
George Galloway plays the role of a cat (original) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1NIuCt72bU
george galloway being a cat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-D5XoNWFSQ
For more on the other housemates, see
Celebrity Big Brother’s Banker Game
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Jan 31, 2006
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2006/02/celebrity-big-brothers-banker-game.html
George Galloway is causing quite a stir in Celebrity Big Brother on Channel 4. He entered the house, along with ten others, on the evening of thursday, January 5th. It was Day 8, a week later, on Jan 12, when, apparently following Big Brother’s orders, Galloway crawled up to actress Rula Lenska, while on prime-time television, pretending to be a cat lapping up imaginary milk from her cupped hands. This controversial display might have seemed erotic to some viewers; to others, it might have been considered disgusting or offensive. Either way, it couldn't be considered a worthy depiction of a cat lapping milk. But one has to admit, these antics do place him squarely into the realm of performance Big Brother seems to prefer; it is, after, all, people relating to one another in the diverse ways they do that makes it interesting. We would have to assume that this performance was spontaneous, and that Ruth Lenska was not responsible for the actions of George Galloway. In other words, it was not planned between the two of them. Galloway is already in trouble, for not being there for his constituents, although his office is still open.
As an MP, he has taken liberties, apparently, abandoning them while he goes off for up to three weeks to be with celebrities of various kinds, all willingly exposing their personalities, including quirks and flaws, in front of the camera. For these individuals to be together for up to three weeks, never knowing whether they will be voted out during the next round (by each other and the public) or be required to stay, is just part of the indignity of the situation.
Galloway doesn’t deserve either to be seen as a laughing stock or granted respect for his cat-antics. He is simply doing what a man does. George Galloway is the first member of Parliament - the Respect party - to take part in Celebrity Big Brother.
Added April 16, 2012
Videos
George Galloway plays the role of a cat (original) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1NIuCt72bU
george galloway being a cat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-D5XoNWFSQ
For more on the other housemates, see
Celebrity Big Brother’s Banker Game
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Jan 31, 2006
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2006/02/celebrity-big-brothers-banker-game.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)