How I wish that this warrior woman might have laid down her arms by now because the struggle for women's equality had been won. But we are going backwards, as we have seen both in the U.S. and Canada this week.
P.S. The comments on the YouTube site -- like many of the comments that never get posted on this blog -- are indicative of how much hatred there is for women. Consider yourself warned.
OTTAWA -- Missing and murdered women in Canada will be remembered Sunday in memorial marches across the country.
But the occasion may become a memorial for a government-funded research project that put a spotlight on the hundreds of aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered in this country. Federal funding for the Sisters in Spirit initiative of the Native Women's Association of Canada runs out March 31, and the federal government will not give the group any indication whether it will extend its mandate.
"We haven't heard anything," said Sisters in Spirit director Kate Rexe. "The government is silent on the issue."
With a grant of $5 million, Sisters in Spirit spent the last five years compiling a database of more than 520 women who have disappeared or been killed over the last 40 years. The group prepared tool kits for families and police to use when a woman goes missing and developed policies and programs to help stop the cycle of violence.
Rexe said the Sisters group is prepared to begin implementing policies and community programs aimed at three specific areas -- the justice system, child welfare and poverty. But that's been on hold for months because Ottawa won't say if it plans to keep funding the work.
"It's unbelievably frustrating," Rexe said. "We have all the knowledge, the momentum. We can actually start to implement change, but we don't even know if we can keep planning."
A year ago, Status of Women Minister Helena Guergis said she was working on extending the project. "I want you to know, I've already engaged in the process of what Sisters in Spirit Two would look like," Guergis said at the Status of Women committee meeting Feb. 12, 2009.
But a spokeswoman for Guergis would not say Friday whether funding for Sisters in Spirit is forthcoming, and said in an email Ottawa has asked NWAC to share its database with police
UPPITY WOMAN DATE: This letter was sent to the Star's Public Editor Kathy English, about the image accompanying this post. I reprint it here, unedited:
Good afternoon,
The following link came to my attention today, which takes an article published in Saturday’s Winnipeg Free Press regarding the fate of funding related to the research, education and policy initiative of the Native Women’s Association of Canada called Sisters In Spirit, and attaches an extremely offensive photo of two topless Aboriginal women.
This photo is not only offensive, it is a colonizer’s portrait of Aboriginal women which is sexualized and arguably trying to create the image of the “savage” woman, denying dignity and respect for the true place of Aboriginal women, who are historically the givers of life, central to communities as nurturers, caregivers, educators and leaders. To connect this photo to a story about Native women’s leadership on the issue of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls is disrespectful and only goes to further devalue the lives of Aboriginal women and stigmatize their place in Canadian society.
The response from one of my staff I think says it best:
“Honestly though, I would like to see a newspaper article that talks about missing and murdered Aboriginal women with a photo of happy (or just normal) young, Aboriginal girls accompanying it. THESE are the women we’re talking about who are at risk of violence!!! And this photo proves a point we’re making in the research paper that Aboriginal women have been dehumanized through colonization. And Canada thinks it’s progressed?”
I’m looking forward to the day when the media begin to treat Aboriginal women in the same way we do the stories of Tori Stafford and Jessica Lloyd – innocent victims of violence who are honoured for their lives, and not marginalized, dehumanized, or sensationalized for social stigmas or the circumstances surrounding their death. Sadly, this day will be a long time coming when supposedly “progressive” media outlets like The Toronto Star are posting photos of Canada’s shameful history as an image of Aboriginal women today.
I ask you to please take this image down immediately.
Thank you,
Kate
Kate Rexe, B.A. (Hons), M.A.
Director, Sisters in Spirit
Native Women's Association of Canada
You know, I actually don't disagree. Which is why I chose the image. Perhaps i should have been clearer about my intentions. It is precisely because Aboriginal women have been treated as disposable objects, ever since European men set foot in the Americas, that we have arrived at this place in modern history where our government not only does not care, but actively turns its back on the problem of missing and murdered Aboriginal women.
The photo, however, is not unlike other photos I have run with other blogposts about women being violated both here and abroad. Whether I am talking about the murder of Jasmine Fiore, whose highly-sexualized photos filled the media, or the acid attacks on Afghan girls, or the rapes of women in the Congo, none of the pictures are pretty.
And aren't all of these women colonized, not quite in the same way of course. But colonized none the less.
It's an object lesson in the systemic sexism that used to exist.
Because words shape our world. Ms. is not some trendy modern social contraption. It was first spotted on the tombstone of Ms. Sarah Spooner in 1767, the handiwork, perhaps, of a frugal stone carver. For much of the 18th and 19th centuries, Mrs. and Miss were deployed to signal age, not marital status. Both were derived from Mistress, a word that, before it put on its feather boa and fishnet stockings, was the title for any woman with authority over a household.
As a handy form of address, Ms. found a foothold in the 1952 guidelines of the National Office Management Association: they suggested using it to avoid any confusion over a woman's marital state. Twenty years later, when Ms. magazine was born, the editors explained, "Ms. is being adopted as a standard form of address by women who want to be recognized as individuals, rather than being identified by their relationship with a man." That same year, the U.S. Government Printing Office approved using Ms. in official government documents.
Such developments left the New York Times — which that year ran a story headlined IN SMALL TOWN, U.S.A., WOMEN'S LIBERATION IS EITHER A JOKE OR A BORE — in the awkward position of identifying Gloria Steinem as "Miss Steinem, editor of Ms. magazine." At that point, even the late language guru William Safire called for surrender. The Times refused on the grounds that the title had not passed into common usage. "We reconsider it from time to time," the editors mused, but "to our ear, it still sounds too contrived for news writing." Only in 1986 did the Times relent; the editors at Ms. sent flowers.
It's true that not all that many women passed on the Mrs. form of address once they married -- a move that seems to be making a comeback.
I doubt many Broadsides readers would be surprised to learn that I was one of the earliest Ms. adopters. Despite two marriages, I never played Mrs. Anybody except when dealing with the phone company because the bills were always addressed to the husbands' names -- plus their names were simpler than mine.
Some women went the hyphenated route. This was not an option for me, even if I had chosen it. Too many freaking letters!
The irony, of course, is that Zerbisias was my Dad's name, not my Mom's. Now, in Quebec, women are legally called by their birth names, so, when she is addressed by the name she gave up when she married in 1938, my mother thinks there's been some mistake.
Incidentally, when my Canadian-born mom married my father, who was not yet a naturalized "British subject'' (Canadian), she lost her citizenship because that's what happened to women who married foreigners. But not vice versa.
On Monday, Elinor Ostrom of the United States became the first woman to win the Economics Prize.
How sad is that? Not that she won but that, well into the 21st Century, we're still saying ''the first woman to ..."
And, to think we still have. ''the first woman president'' and ''the first woman vice-president'' of the US ahead of us -- although I would gladly pass on both as long as it keeps Sarah Palin from winning either office.
Anyway, last week, Romanian-born German author Herta Mueller won the Nobel
Literature Prize, while Israel's Ada Yonath was one of three
scientists recognised for chemistry.
Two other women, Australian-American Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol
Greider of the United States, were both awarded the Nobel Medicine Prize.
Yesterday, while driving with the pooch to the beach, I spotted two small and silent anti-choice demos on two rather busy intersections. Both were near churches, but that may have been a coincidence. They are probably, in some way, connected to the 40 Days for Lifeprayer-rama on right now. But I can't be sure as I did not stop the car and get out and ask.
I didn't have a camera with me so I could snap pictures but some of my Tweeps were digitally-equipped when they saw similar demos at other corners around town. (Credit for the photo goes to @michalhay.) I also have received reports of other demos in other Ontario towns.
The two I saw consisted of no more than 4-6 people, most of them men. One group was holding up signs that said ''Abortion kills children'' while the other's poster boards read ''Life: The First Right.''
Now, we can go around endlessly, as we already have many times on this blog, as to whether an embryo=a child. But, if you are going to talk rights here, then a woman's right not to be an incubator trumps a zygote's right to exist.
Meanwhile, over on Twitter, the ''I am #prochoice'' challenge continues, with women (and men) tweeting their reasons for wanting to protect a woman's right to choose in a time when that right is under attack. Readsomeofthemhereandhere.
Here are two of my own Tweets:
If antichoicers told the Pope that condoms & the Pill should be available everywhere, maybe they'd be more credible. #prochoice
and
If antichoicers spent as much energy lobbying for daycare instead of shaming pregnant women, maybe they'd be credible. #prochoice
Common sense, no? If they're all about the ''child'' and not about punishing the woman for having sex by forcing her to bear the consequences of having sex -- kids as punishment, that's a concept -- then why aren't these people fighting for universal access to contraception and, when that fails, childcare?
Which brings us to this thoughtful post over at Feminists for Choice. Note that the figures are American but they are probably relevant here as well:
... it costs a mere $10K a year, per kid, for part time daycare at a center–but that’s for a school aged child! Placing an infant in day care is WAY more expensive–A NACCRRA report detailing child care costs for 2008 lists the cost of one year of full-time infant care at as high as $15,895! Considering that the median family income in the US is $50,740.00/year, some families are paying out as much as a THIRD of their annual income in day care costs alone!
A parent might be able to find lower-cost care, but that usually means placing their children in a home day care, but as NACCRRA points out, many are unlicensed and it is harder to accurately determine the level of safety/quality of care received at such facilities.
<SNIP>
Faced with such daunting day care rates, medical care costs, a couple of years worth of diapers, clothes, food, school supplies and anything else required for even the most frugal of budgets, even the average family is, realistically, quickly priced out of having a child.
Unless we turn the clocks back to 1952 and make Mommy stay at home.
Which could explain that (sarcastic snort here) very helpful $25 (minus the tax) a week baby bonus the Harper Conservatives gave us instead of a national daycare program.
Speaking of contraception, I picked this up via the current, green-focused issue of Maclean's:
According to the UN, about 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended -- that's a lot of babies spewing CO2 into the environment and consuming precious resources. So, of all the green technologies out there, birth control might be the most environmentally friendly.
"I'm in a board meeting. Having a miscarriage. Thank goodness, because there's a f**ked-up 3-week hoop-jump to have an abortion in Wisconsin."
Why the uproar over this twitter?
Not only have bloggers written whole posts about the disgustingness of it, but 70 people unfollowed me, and people actually came to my blog and wrote complaints about the twitter on random, unrelated posts.
So, to all of you who think the twitter was outrageous, think about this:
This means that there are thousands of miscarriages in progress, at work, on any given day. That we don’t acknowledge this is absurd. That it is such a common occurrence and no one thinks it’s okay to talk about is terrible for women.
Exactly. It's like sitting in a board room, with buckets of sweat pouring down your face even though the AC is down to 65, and trying to pretend you are not having a hot flash. Why the secrecy? Why the shame over this perfectly natural and uncontrollable function that, I hasten to add, doesn't stink up the room?
To continue:
To all of you who said I should not be happy about having a
miscarriage: You are the ones short on empathy. Any woman who is
pregnant but wishes she weren’t would of course be grateful when she
has a miscarriage. Yes, there are many women who want the baby and have
a miscarriage. I was one of them. I cried for days. I get it.
But if you have ever had an abortion, which I have, you would know that a miscarriage is preferable to an abortion. Even the Pope would agree with that.
And what is up with the fact that just one, single person commented
about how Wisconsin has a three-week waiting period for abortions? It
is absolutely outrageous how difficult it was going to be for me to get
an abortion, and it’s outrageous that no one is outraged.
Wow, to be one of the teeny tiny nanofraction of the hundreds of thousands of women who have had abortions and have never admitted it publicly takes guts. Real guts. And to say you wanted another one?
It's a legal procedure. It's a woman's choice. But the way the holy rollers are carrying on, she should be a shame-faced slut made to bear her children whether she will love or care for them or not.
And, if you don't buy that, here's the relatively liberal Rick Sanchez of CNN giving Trunk the third degree.
Note that he refers to her as ''young lady'' -- and she's a mother in her 40s.
They don't admit it on their website or on their Twitter profile but, as a teeny bit of cybersleuthing revealed, these freshly-hatched Fringe Femmes seem to be straight out of Iggy's office.
Anyway, they're picking up on the meme my Facebook posse and I have been working on since my column back here, the one that lambasted PM Stephen Harper for referring to the Courts Challenges program, which his government shut down, as being supportive of ''left-wing fringe'' causes like, oh I don't know, women's rights, gay rights, minority rights and even fighting anti-Semitic hate speech.
All this said, we original ''I am a proud member of that 'left-wing' fringe' group called 'women'" women don't really mind that there's an effort to go viral out there by Liberal Party types.
The more the merrier.
It's just that we kind of hate their electric pink site.
Meanwhile, the anti-choicers, who insist on inflicting their religion on women seeking abortions, claim to have saved 38 babies and induced one clinic staffer to quit. I wonder how many of those young women were intimidated by seeing a chanting people holding up shaming signs?
ARLINGTON, TN (WMC-TV) - Shelby County Sheriff's deputies say a pregnant Arlington woman was murdered by her boyfriend after the couple had argued about an abortion.
Well, since she's dead and he's not, we'll have to take the police explanation as the reason for the dispute.
"There was a bullet wound in the side of her stomach, one in her chest, one it looked to be in the back of her head. There was so much blood you couldn't tell," (a neighbour) said.
<SNIP>
Witnesses told detectives that (the accused) Nelson was the father of (the victim's) Johnson's child, and that he wanted her to have an abortion, but she refused.
Ingram says Nelson's intent to kill the child was obvious by her wounds.
"It looked like he was intent on killing both of them," he said.
Detectives agree. Nelson will be charged with double murder.
Two thoughts on that.
One is that, intimate partner violence is one of the leading causes of maternal death during pregnancy. Motives range from jealousy to not wanting a child. This victim was way past the abortion point, unless her life was in danger from the fetus -- and there's no indication that's the case. So there's probably much more to this story. (And why do I think we'll hear from the Men's Rights guys among us on this one?)
The other thought is, a double homicide charge here is venturing on to legal turf that could restrict a woman's right to choose -- as we saw last year in Canada when most Conservatives (and many Liberals) endorsed a private member's bill that could have done exactly that.
And, just like I suggested last week, more and more US states are looking at legislative means to end women's reproductive rights. This time, it's California.
From Florida to California, abortion foes are gathering signatures, pressing state legislators and raising money to put personhood measures on ballots next year. In Louisiana, a class at a Catholic high school is lobbying state legislators as part of a civics exercise.
"We have big and small efforts going on in 30 states right now," said Keith Mason, co-founder of Colorado-based Personhood USA. "Our goal is to activate the population."
Critics deride the effort as the "egg-as-person" movement and say it threatens in vitro fertilization; some kinds of birth control, including IUDs and pills; and stem cell research. They say that Americans will reject it as a government intrusion into their privacy.
"It's a backdoor abortion ban," said Ted Miller, spokesman for NARAL Pro-Choice America, which has worked with Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups to defeat such measures.
The Religious Coalition is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. We do not at any time advocate for abortion but we do advocate for women and men making their own decisions about their reproductive life, in consultation with their faith tradition, a condition that we believe is the very basis of an individual's dignity and of moral behavior.
Being pro-choice means we believe women and men should be able to decide what is best for themselves and their families, including giving birth, choosing adoption, and deciding to have an abortion. We work to keep family planning and sexuality education available to all Americans because these are the tested and proven ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions.
The fact is, we communicate the grave moral nature of abortion. As people of faith, we support individuals in making their own moral decisions and stand with them as they struggle with the very real complexities of life. It is clear that, while people of all religions anguish over abortion, most feel this is a moral decision, one a woman must make for herself in keeping with her faith, beliefs, conscience, and her own personal situation.
Antonia Zerbisias has been a Star columnist since 1989 but has been telling people what she thinks ever since she could open her mouth. Her career ambition as an opinionator dates back to Grade 9 when a cartoon commentary on a teacher resulted in her suspension from high school. The principal sent her home with a note calling her "rude, obstreperous and bold." Her parents were neither amused, nor surprised. Once she was punished for being that way. Now she makes it pay. And, because she can take it as well as dish it out, she wants to hear what you have to say. Fire away!
TheStar.com
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Toronto Star or www.thestar.com. The Star is not responsible for the content or views expressed on external sites.
Distribution, transmission or republication of any material is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.
Recent Comments