Ça suffit!!! -- ENOUGH!

For over a decade, DJ! has published blogposts that expose the malevolent weapons deployed by patriarchy to enforce its gynophobic ideologies.

Fern writes and tweets mainly about choice with respect to women's reproductive rights, and its sociopolitical significance. I focus on individual and systemic manifestations of a system that upholds men's privilege and impunity in matters of physical and sexual violence against women and girls.

Around 2016 I lost patience with the drawn-out process of writing blogposts about these issues. So much unrelenting VaW everywhere across the planet, that tweeting / retweeting was expedient. 

Every act of violence against women and girls boils down to the same element: men are "allowed" to do what they do and the challenge is to not get *caught* and if that happens, count on the old white boys to affirm the male imperative to hunt down their prey and have fun, doing harm.

This. 

“I think this Tuesday, Dec. 15, will be a dark one for all victims of sexual assault, because I am an example of the limits of the justice system when it comes to sexual violence. I profoundly deplore that the myths and the stereotypes of another era, that were often brought up by the defence, could be echoed in that courtroom. It is a negative message sent by the justice system to victims,” Charette said.

“Finally, to all the victims, I would like to say this: Don’t be ashamed. Despite the disappointment of today, I invite you to denounce (sexual assaults). Things are starting to change.”

Change..? Seems so, so slow. Peter Nygård was arrested in Winnipeg for extradiction to the US to stand trial.

His arrest on sex trafficking charges came after U.S. federal authorities raided Nygard’s Manhattan offices earlier this year [...] after 10 women sued Nygard, saying he enticed young and impoverished women to his Bahamas estate with cash and promises of modeling and fashion opportunities. Several plaintiffs in the suit, filed in New York City, said they were 14 or 15 years old when Nygard gave them alcohol or drugs and then raped them. 

 

Last, and certainly not least. 

In a series of sexual-assault rulings this fall, the Supreme Court has sent a message to appellate courts that they should listen to lower-court judges who believe the complainant.

The court has ruled in seven sexual-assault cases this fall, and in all seven, it has taken the side of the complainant and prosecution. In five of those cases, appeal courts had thrown out convictions registered by trial judges, saying their decisions had been unfair to the male defendants. In the other two, trial judges convicted the men and appeal-court majorities upheld the convictions. [...]

Women’s advocates say the Supreme Court is maintaining its fairness.

“I really don’t see this in any way being about a loss of objectivity and fairness or jumping on the MeToo bandwagon,” Megan Stephens, the executive director and general counsel for the Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund, said in an interview.

The court, she said, is sending a message to appeal courts not to second guess trial judges on credibility and reliability assessments. “The primary message coming out of the Supreme Court is ‘don’t forget, you owe deference to those trial judges’. ”

Assessments of credibility (honesty) and reliability (accuracy) are central to the trial judge’s job. Appeal courts generally defer to these assessments because it is the trial judge who sits in court and hears directly from the witnesses. Witnesses do not testify at appeal courts. But if an appeal court believes the trial judge made a legal error in their approach to assessing credibility, it can throw out a conviction and order a new trial.

There were no legal errors. The criminal defence lawyers who appealed their clients' guilty verdicts would not accept the judges' judicial decision based on the testimony of witnesses / complainants whose credibility they attempted to destroy for their clients to *win* and to affirm their right to rape.

As these two squalid predators did, and were acquitted of their crimes, free to sexually assault again with impunity.

Legal errors. Did Judge Beaudoin commit any of those? Or was he merely conned by the prolific liar and accused serial sex predator Paul Batchelor?

Change. Whatever. Du n'importe quoi.

Old, white, privileged and mediocre men.

There's a tweet floating around from some Democrat flunky naming his "Dream Team" players for the POTUS 46 cabinet posts. It includes David Petraeus as Director of National Intelligence and Larry Summers for the Treasury.

Right-o. Petraeus with his messy and rather unintelligent choices.

Bruce Carson -- Stephen Harper's *influence peddler* aka fixer -- did once observe:

And Summers? Not only is he Jeffrey-Epstein-adjacent to put it mildly but Larry is also a slick shill for the fossil fuel industry and for predatory neoliberalism, basically.

Seems rather obvious why these two Clinton-legacy creeps could still garner the admiration of some Democrat men. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The Democrat boys' club is just as sleazy as the Republican one.

Patriarchy is a circle jerk, or in Economic terms: the *invisible hand* that lubes and turns the crank of capitalism.

When femicide is justified by men who feel their "honour" has been soiled.

The first post of an informal series, illustrating how and when all the elements of the legal system do work and justice is served.

Dorothy Woods.

Police officers meticulously collected evidence to document a complicated investigation in a rigorous, professional manner.

Here's an interesting series of posts, following the release of her accused killer - presumed innocent as the legal system goes, and this feminist agrees - on bail after he was charged.

The Crown proceeded with skill, compassion and due diligence.

The defendant's lawyer attempted to impugn the integrity and the objectivity of the prosecutor.

Outside court, defense lawyer Michael Nolin took issue with how the texts presented to the jury portray David Woods as a racist. "I'm very disappointed that this is the line that the prosecution has chosen to draw in the sand," he said. "I find it interesting that the only prosecutor of colour in the Saskatoon provincial prosecution office has been drawn to try this case. And he's been on it from the beginning."

Nolin concluded his case for the defence by stating Dorothy engaged in a high-risk lifestyle with several strange (code for black) men*, and exhorted the jurors to "vote with their conscience".  Oddly that doesn't sound at all like a closing argument to me though it does seem to be a judgement.

The judge carefully presided over the trial and instructed the jury members.

The attentive jury reviewed the details of evidence that was gathered and presented.

After a finding of first degree murder, the prosecutor Michael Segu was able to offer observations to the media in his measured, thoughtful manner.

Oh. Was it racism, the "the elephant in the room" that Woods' lawyer Michael Nolin kept tripping over?

Nonetheless David Woods refused to take responsibility for the aggrieved male honour and patriarchal privilege that motivated him to plan and execute the vengeful murder of his wife.  He appealed his conviction.

*The testimony of Dorothy's friend was challenged by Woods' lawyer; the judge allowed it.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* 

ADDED: to provide a context for this post.  There have been many confrontations after the Ghomeshi decision, particularly with regard to those who seem compelled to police what can be properly criticized.  On both sides of the divide, many have descended into use of hyperbole.

These screen caps indicate how most criticism of Justice Horkins' judgement is met with hostile screeching of SO YOU WANT TO ABOLISH THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE! 

When those accused of being "anti-presumption of innocence" attempt to clarify - they're then accused of being in league with some RWNJ advocacy for victims, such as the useful con job Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu.  Err, no. 

Ghomeshi Lessons, part 1.

What to write about the trial of the decade? The banal evil of social media hyperbole + a depraved legal system can devour events and regurgitate a perfectly horrifying dawg's breakfast.

The cathartic element in this case and trial is a histrionically skilled and malignant narcissist who has benefitted immeasurably from patriarchy AND feminism.

Seasoned feminists observed that in the 1970s women acquired the right to say YES enthusiastically to sexual activity.  This *revolution* was immediately countered by many men who exploited it to their advantage by denying a woman's right to say NO.

Generations of men then followed, some who claim not to understand what consent is, others who whine about being "friend-zoned" and those who aspire to PUA summits of Roosh-like action.

Jian Ghomeshi falls into the latter category.  His public schtick, which worked admirably well for pseudo-feminists in the 1970s, was refined to the point that many staunch feminist acquaintances were completely scammed by his Support Bro' demeanour.  Meanwhile, in his private life he was the guy who badly needed to hurt women to get a really good hard-on.

In late 2014, when rumours about certain proclivities became too loud, he deployed a well-honed tactic of pre-emptive aggression.  He showed a video of one of his rough sex episodes to his CBC bosses.  It's not known whether the other participant consented to the activity, its recording or its presentation to Ghomeshi's superiors.

That didn't go well.  So he cranked up the campaign by posting a self-indulgent piece (Just a lad with a kink!) on his Facebook website, not anticipating this would provide leverage to The Toronto Star to publish their story.

This led to an outpouring of many other women reporting that Ghomeshi had physically assaulted them.

When his PR firm failed him, Ghomeshi hired Marie Henein as his criminal defence lawyer, weeks ahead of actually being charged with criminal assault.

Here's a chronology of events.

Back in 2014, I anticipated Henein would find ways of stitching-up the evidence.

Playing Cassandra is an unpleasant role though somebody has to do it.

This was before the trial commenced.  As it unfolded, I wrote a blogpost and used tweets to observe, from afar.

Horkins' pontification seems to confirm that Henein used the knowledge she gleaned from his previous judgments to map out a strategy that played to his beliefs and principles.  A specific approach to cross-examination was required to demonstrate the complainants were unreliable and that their testimony wasn't credible.

But. If the prosecution's case could be so easily destroyed, why didn't Heinin approach the Crown, as she did with the Michael Bryant case, to lay out the full content of the defence preparation and suggest that the charges be dismissed?

In the Bryant file, technical experts dismantled the sloppy evidence-gathering TPS produced. As well, there was considerable information with regard to Darcy Sheppard and manifestations of physical threats he expressed against other drivers.

Wait.  Here's the difference between the two cases, in addition to the possibility one of the accused is a basically decent person and the other one isn't.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that a professional would have to consult their client before engaging with the prosecution in matters such as plea bargaining or suggesting charges be dismissed.

With Bryant's case, proceeding to trial meant that Henein or her assistant counsel would have to set up Crown witnesses as well as TPS staff testimony for demolition and in the process, embarrassing the police department as well as the prosecution lawyers.  Proof of Darcy Sheppard's previous violent behaviour would have to be thoroughly documented.  Bryant was likely to be acquitted, why not avoid the expense of a prolonged trial that besmirched the memory of his victim?

In light of what's been revealed with regard to the pleasure he takes from manipulating, degrading, harming and injuring women, I believe that if Ghomeshi had been informed of Henein's strategy, he would have licked his chops at the eventuality of seeing these women savaged in the court-room.  No way would this vindictive man have chosen to deprive himself of a privileged front-row seat to their humiliation.

That trial stands not only as a warning to women who have been physically and sexually assaulted to avoid reporting the crime to the criminal injustice system, but to those who might now and in the future, be approached by Ghomeshi.  His sexual fetish is violence against women and girls. (Some of the women who claim he approached them online are under 21 years of age. He is 46.)

A woman who was a graduate law student when she dated Ghomeshi in 2002, described what occurred and why she chose at that time not to report his violent, coercive attack on her.

Cops, crown lawyers, defence attorneys, judges: anybody who continues to exonerate and justify the way in which the legal system crushes complainants and re-victimizes them, explicitly colludes with patriarchal violence.

Unless they speak up against such travesty, and work to change this injustice.

ADDED: _What Ought Crown Counsel to do in Prosecuting Sexual Assault Charges? Some Post-Ghomeshi Reflections_ March 29, 2016 from Alice Woolley.

"[..] preparation is still essential for the prosecution of a criminal trial. Witness preparation does more than tell the lawyer about the nature of the evidence. It allows the lawyer to assess the witness’s ability to present the evidence, to determine whether the witness will advance the lawyer’s trial strategy and, ultimately, to determine if that trial strategy has a viable chance of succeeding given the nature of this witness’s evidence and capacity to testify. Further, it allows the lawyer to help ensure that the witness gets to provide her testimony, and that she will not end up looking like a liar when she is telling the truth.

Because let’s be absolutely clear: it is the ethical duty of a defence lawyer to make prosecution witnesses look like liars, even if those witnesses are telling the truth. That duty is constrained; a defence lawyer must not harass a witness, and must remain within the boundaries of the legal restrictions on cross-examination (in a sexual assault case, e.g., not asking improper questions about the complainant’s sexual history). But within those constraints a defence lawyer will do his best to exploit any inconsistency or weakness in the witness’s evidence to make that witness appear to be non-credible. Whether or not the witness is in fact telling the truth is not only irrelevant, it may make discrediting that witness essential to the defence lawyer’s ability to obtain an acquittal for his client [..]"

Read the whole magnificent thing here.

ALSO: This. _Mastery or Misogyny? The Ghomeshi Judgment and Sexual Assault Reform_ April 1, 2016 from Joshua Sealy-Harrington.

As discussed earlier, Justice Horkins’ judgment has deeply polarized Canadian discourse on sexual assault, receiving both warm praise and vitriolic criticism.However, in my view, neither approach is optimal for deconstructing the judgment with a view to improving the Canadian administration of sexual assault law. Rather, a careful consideration of the judgment’s strengths and weaknesses permits the most comprehensive analysis of the genuine mistakes made by Justice Horkins (and others), and how best to avoid those mistakes in future cases.We need to address the problems that pervade the Canadian administration of sexual assault law, and those problems must be understood before they can be solved.

In my humble opinion, Kwe Today presents the best pragmatic and theoretical arguments for a timely and necessary revision of the criminal code and its sexual assault provisions.

Theses are the thinkers who are raising their voices, after Marie Henein blew the lid off the festering legal system rot.

We might listen, then actively support law reform in this regard.

What is Marie Henein's end game?

The trial of the former Q host on CBC is well underway. Five days so far of mediocre prosecutorial presentations while on the adversarial side, the best Grand Guignol cross-examination that defence lawyer Marie Henein is capable of executing.

What if Henein's agenda were to expose how the Canadian (in)justice system, with regard to crimes of sexual assault and trials, is fundamentally patriarchal?

Here's one account of the grim proceedings.  As well, _Chatelaine_ has produced formidable coverage of many aspects of the trial.

This insight into the first days of the trial came from a surprising source.

Though she was roasted and toasted in cross-examination by the former broadcaster’s lead lawyer, Marie Henein, it’s important to note that for all the inconsistencies in the woman’s evidence — some significant — a constant in her police statement, many media interviews and testimony this week is her claim that Ghomeshi struck her hard, with a closed fist she thought, on the side of the head.
[..] Her difficulties arose, in my view, in part because it appears her allegations weren’t as thoroughly investigated by the police as perhaps they should have been and because prosecutors didn’t thoroughly examine her or re-examine her at all.
The blow of those terribly damaging emails and the bikini photo she sent Ghomeshi, for instance, a year after the second alleged assault where he purportedly smacked her in the head, would have been mitigated had she been asked follow-up questions when she mentioned, voluntarily in examination-in-chief, that she had “a vague memory” of writing a note to him, in anger, but wasn’t sure she’d sent it.
“You aren’t trying to hide the fact that you might have written Mr. Ghomeshi?” prosecutors could have asked.
The question alone would have diffused the impact of Henein’s revelation.

I'm not the only one who is wondering, WTF game is the prosecution playing?  Why are the Crown lawyers throwing the complainants under the bus?  This from Jane Doe, provides illumination.

On the other side, my daughter - a decade younger than Ghomeshi or Henein - loathes what the former did as well as his lawyer's antics.

She has nothing but contempt for the high-stakes histrionical performance the latter is currently offering.  She thinks the lawyer is an opportunist who will leverage a spectacular win to catapult herself onto a larger and more lucrative stage.

The Ghomeshi trial could indeed do for Henein's reputation what OJ Simpson's did for the Kardashians: transform her into a minor US celebrity.

This is the Toronto Life article about Henein that gave my daughter pause, with regard to Henein's professional choices.

Perhaps her perspective is lopsided.  After all, she's a mere physician in a demanding specialty.  In her line of work, individuals who apply such rigour and dedication to the pursuit of excellence _only_ save lives.  They don't destroy them.

Droit au but!

Straight into the goal. NOT.

Are arrogant old creeps with an exalted sense of entitlement drawn to Olympic organizations because of the perks: a wide field of physically admirable and goal-oriented young women and men?

Slimy Marcel Aubut, ex-president of the Canadian Olympic Committee, is allegedly a long-time practitioner of a medieval tradition known as "le droit de cuissage". That term was revived in the French media following allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. 

And these actions (described in excruciating, crude detail in several media news items) were allegedly tolerated because Aubut is wealthy, a gregarious schmoozer (he's an habitué of grandiose sporting events such as Montréal's Grand Prix), politically well-connected, a successful fundraiser, etc. etc. 

Doesn't that sound familiar: alleged habitual sexual harasser gets away with it because other men in the organization find it more beneficial to pretend it isn't happening.  Women who speak up are told to deal, to be a "good sport" about it or to look for another job. Rarely is the problem fixed - that is, the harasser told to stop.

In case you thought his repellent actions were only directed at menial support staff members, it seems "good ol' boy" Marcel always rose to any "opportunity" in a skirt.

TVA reported that Aubut settled a sexual harassment claim at his law firm, Heenan Blaikie, in 2011, over groping, verbal harassment and inviting a woman into a room only to show up wearing boxer shorts. In La Presse, lawyer and Canadian Soccer Association board member Amelia Salehabadi-Fouques alleged Aubut forcibly kissed her in a restaurant, verbally harassed her, and tried to enter her hotel room, also in 2011.

It's been reported that COC did try to read the riot act to Aubut.  Just as some un-neutered old dogs still try to hump just about anything in sight, some privileged old white men just can't stop playing their vile old patriarchal tricks.

Aubut's most recent peccadillo was a covert operation jiggered with Toronto Mayor John Tory as they colluded in trying to finagle an Olympic bid without the approbation of city council.

My co-blogger fern hill led the charge, writing and tweeting in support of #NoTO2024.  Her trenchant blogposts on that issue are here.

But now, Aubut has *resigned*.  I suspect he was given a spectacularly shiny golden handshake to speed him on his way.  Hopefully the women who allegedly had to endure his groping, his greasy kisses and his disgusting salacious comments in the work environment were just as generously compensated.

Ha! Kidding! Unless they hired a lawyer to secure a financial agreement, the COC will give them nothing for the humiliation they suffered

Finally: remember that one woman got very angry, d'une crisse de sainte colère and officially filed a complaint about Aubut's actions.  She was the tipping point, actually more than that: 

“I hope people don’t lose sight of the strength it took for this lady to come forward, faced with a very, very powerful individual,” says Rudge. “And to have the courage to challenge what had gone on, and the courage of her convictions to follow through and get a resolution to an issue for many, many other women who weren’t in a position to come forward.”

That, as much as anything, is the underlying lesson in all this. Nobody truly challenged Marcel Aubut, until somebody did. If you’re looking for the Olympian in all this, there you go.

Note: the above blogpost was edited to judiciously add the words "alleged" and "allegedly". This does not cast doubt upon the women who recalled experiences of sexual harassment; it highlights the reality that these events have not been entered as evidence in a court of law ... yet.

Let's make ALL the girls and women wear niqab, RIGHT?!

Now that I have your attention, my point is that Harper and the CPC are cravenly using the niqab to push hot buttons during this election.

The political cartoon above suggests the niqab issue will provide Harper with a "wind at his back" which he needs desperately needs to win the election race.

There are dozens of institutions that oppress women.  The niqab is the least of them but Harper's Attack Dingo™ Lynton Crosby has found one with formidable scaremongering OPTICS, right?

Susan Delacourt unpacks CPC doublespeak with regard to the niqab.

Rational people and critics of Harper's regime nail what the CPC tactic obfuscates:

This happened north of Ottawa last week. Basil Borutski 'allegedly' executed three women. How can this still occur, in Ontario, in 2015?

“Our systems need to try to pick out these warning signs sooner and do everything we can to provide safety and security,” [Illingworth] said. “There are absolutely gaps.”

The province’s Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, which works with the coroner’s office to review every domestic homicide in Ontario over more than a decade, has compiled a list of risk factors that “indicate the potential for lethality” within relationships or, to put it another way, a check-list to figure out the likelihood that an abuser will kill his partner.

Most of the boxes would be ticked off when it came to Borutski: a history of violence, an escalation of violence, obsessive behaviour, unemployment, isolation of victims and victims having an “intuitive sense of fear.”

From here:

Leighann Burns, the executive director of Ottawa women's shelter Harmony House, said many women feel that abusive men are not monitored closely enough after being released from jail, and that conditions placed on those who are released can, in some cases, easily be ignored.

"We hear from women routinely that the offences that men commit against them are not treated seriously in the criminal justice system," Burns said.

"Somebody who is lethally violent, who has clearly got no respect for the system or any sanctions that are meted out — there's not much that can be done, other than to lock him up or keep her hidden," she said.

So, probation officer are overworked, likely because of a large client load which, at the risk of provoking shrieks from Babs Kay, I will guess is 90% male offenders.

Remember Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti Shafia, 13, along with Rona Mohammad Amir, 50? Their bodies were found in the family’s Nissan, submerged in the Rideau Canal on June 30, 2009. The family members who killed them were able to "justify" their murders using the same twisted patriarchal ideology that motivated Borutski.  

Women "provoke" their murderers by defying the Gawd-given control entrusted to men to extract resources from women.  If women and girls refuse to provide men with what they want and demand, they're disposable.  They can be threatened, harmed, damaged, tortured and killed with impunity.  That chilling premise is the core of patriarchal extremism throughout the world.

So, the niqab? Just as oppressive as Harper's Hard-On Crime regime of venal liars who did NOTHING during their 9 years in government to make Canada safer for women and girls.


For a rueful chuckle to end my pessimistic rambling, check out my co-blogger's post about #CdnNiqab as well has the photos that folks posted on Twitter.

Everything you wanted to know about Kay Mère and _Trainwreck_ but..

..were afraid to ask.

Babs correctly predicts feminists won't like the ending of Amy Schumer's movie.

Why?

Feminists loathe redemption and respectability, which are TRULY the only things that give purpose to the *trampy* protagonist's life, according to Kay.

_Trainwreck_ is an exemplary morality fairy tale, an inspiration to whores and bad grrls, in her R.E.A.L.women view.

Thank gawd for professional slut-shamer Kay, and all the women who share her sour, tight-sphinctered and pearl-clutching ideological constructs.

Common, every-day patriarchy as well as its bastions: the Vatican Taliban, Hasidic extremism, Saudi Wahhabism to name but a few, would crumble without its handmaidens.

The *happily ever after* is such a predictable Hollywood cliché ending — even when hipsters produce such movies — that I saw it coming a mile away.

What offended me about _Trainwreck_ was its crass, opportunistic and shallow execution. The script is a contrived series of sketches that might have been dynamite on their own, were they sharpened up and NOT riddled with hackneyed plot devices.


The only thing that distinguishes _Trainwreck_ from any bland TV sitcom episode?  The brilliant performances of Tilda Swinton, LeBron James and John Cena.

Enough is enough

This happened, certainly not for the first time on Porter Airlines:

Christine Flynn, 31, said she was buckled in and waiting for Porter Airlines Flight 121 from Newark, N.J. to Toronto to take off early on Monday morning when an ultra-Orthodox Jewish man approached.

"He came down the aisle, he didn't actually look at me … or make eye contact. He turned to the gentleman across the aisle and said, 'Change.'"

Flynn said she was confused at first, wondering why the man was speaking to the other passenger and gesturing toward her. The man didn't speak to her directly, but Flynn said it's clear to her that he didn't want to sit next to her because she's a woman.

Flynn said she might have been willing to accommodate the man had he spoken to her directly and politely asked her to switch seats. She admits language may have been a factor — saying his English "wasn't terrific" — but said his refusal to even make eye contact was offensive.

"He could have made a plan, he could have put in a request," Flynn said in an interview Wednesday on CBC Radio's Metro Morning. "When someone doesn't look at you, and when someone doesn't acknowledge you as person because of your gender, you're a lot less willing to be accommodating.

"Leaving it to the last minute and expecting me to move is appalling. He's expecting me to fall in to that archetypical feminine role and acquiesce."

Other airlines, too.

My response would have been:

Oh yeah.  We see you Patriarchy.  The voluntary members of your ideological clan - the arrogant, the hateful, the entitled, the gynophobic - assume their beliefs are universal and immutable.

My solution:

Another solution: Make the dudes wear blindfolds.  If their eyes offend them by allowing them to *see* women, they can pluck them out.

Patriarchy is not limited to religious institutions; the crusty members of the *New Atheist™old boys club* easily roll within the ruts of obsolescent yet familiar dogma.

I would support a movement to dump ALL THESE DUDES on the next available uninhabited planet, with their toys, their issues, their fetishes, their infuriation, their toxic narcissism.

It's a phenomenon. Wherever male (or one man's) privilege or opinion is challenged, it produces a torrent of consummate women-haters cranking up the volume, using extreme sexualized and/or murderous terms, engaging in habitual 'masculine' trolling tactics directed at the target of their _rage du jour_.

It all eventually degrades into an orgy of vile verbal violence, with these jerks behaving exactly like chimps competing to establish who's the most alpha of them all, who is the most MASSIVELY endowed.

They just form a panel with Barbara Kay and Christie Blatchford judging who has the biggest metaphorical dick.  Or who is the best at compensating mightily

for a lack thereof.

Poster Boy for Entitled Patriarchy

Vic Toews.

The man who didn't just think about having sex with his family's adolescent childcare giver, but did so. The man who exploited his status in a political and social hierarchy to improve his chances of "getting lucky".  The man who used his power to threaten his opposition - and all Canadians, then abused Parliamentary process to get his revenge when he was unmasked as the hypocrite he is.

This is one extreme manifestation of the religious environment in which Toews was steeped.

This is one brave, lone defender of the integrity of our legal system taking on the alleged corruption of Toews' CPC government.

This is one of Vic's peers, exploring the arguments that rationalize why men are entitled to sexualize women and to fetishize their body parts.

This is what we've posted about him and his "accomplishments" in the Harper government, at DAMMIT JANET!

I am fortunate to know many people who don't stand with Vic Toews and who don't share any of his personal or political proclivities.

The only appropriate salutation as he completes his last day of public office before he trundles off to whatever hell he will be creating for other people is "Adios, Vic!"

Our Long Municipal Nightmare Continues

The latest RobFuckingFordFiasco is still developing, so maybe I should hold off.

But what the hell? Lookit that picture!

After a bunfest last night sponsored by Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (whatever that is), Sarah Thomson, former mayoral candidate and no fave here at DJ!, posted that photo to her Facebook page with some allegations.

Former mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson says she wants an apology from Mayor Rob Ford for allegedly touching her inappropriately and making a suggestive remark to her at a party on Thursday night.

“He told me he was in Florida and I should have been with him because his wife wasn’t there,” Thomson told the Star on Friday. “I didn’t expect that. Rob doesn’t normally act that way towards women, so I was a little bit shocked and then we posed to get our picture taken and he grabbed my ass during the pose.”

Starting last night and ramping up as I type, all kinds of claims of lies and set-ups and drunkenness and substance abuse are flying around.

Ford's defenders are very LOUD. They're saying Thomson's story changed, she was drinking, Ford was NOT drinking (lookit that picture again), Thomson's out to get Ford etfuckingcetera.

She's being criticized for taking it to Facebook, for not being more discrete, again etfuckingcetera.

In short, she's being trashed.

However this turns out, on International Women's Day, we have yet another example of two seemingly eternal features of the patriarchy.

1. However a woman handles a sexual assault, it's the wrong way.

2. Women lie and can't be believed over men. No matter the circumstances.

Here's Neville Park's tidy summation.

She's well-connected, moneyed, with every privilege; he's widely disliked, history of lying—what chance do any of *us* have? #TOpoli #IWD
— Neville Park (@neville_park) March 8, 2013

Happy International Women's Day. Ford's timing is, as always, impeccable.

Bonus: Right now, Thomson and Daniel Dale of the Star are doing a live online interview. I assume it will remain available at that link when it's over. If not, I'll come back and update.

Added by deBeauxOs - Since Rob Fucking Ford's credibility is at issue, just thought I'd stick this in here, too.

Mayor Rob Ford has angered teachers and parents at the Etobicoke high school where he coaches football — and prompted an investigation by the Catholic school board — with comments the teachers say depicted the school in a “demeaning way that was filled with untruths.”

Read the whole story.


UPDATE (12:45 p.m.) Team Ford is going with Total Mystified Denial. Not She Misinterpreted. Not I Apologize Not That I Did Anything Wrong.

And not only denial. He calls her a liar. As in this gob-smacking sentence.

What is more surprising is that a woman who has aspired to be a civic leader would cry wolf on a day where we should be celebrating women across the globe.

I believe that wolf will come back to bite him on his MASSIVE ass.

Jonathan Kay to the rescue of patriarchy!!!

*Shorter* Jonathan Kay: women lie, women are murderous, women make men do evil things.  

And so, to protect society from homicidal women, he opines that CPC politicians should pass a law that would give government "oversight' in determining a specific gestational minute when an abortion is no longer a therapeutic medical intervention, but a CRIME.

Never mind that in Canada for the last 25 years, the public health care system has efficiently regulated the termination of unwanted or life-threatening pregnancies by applying medical protocols, procedures and restrictions.

Patriarchy [is the name given to a] societal structure whereby men are dominant not in numbers or in force but in their access to status-related power and decision-making power. It is also connected to economics in that patriarchal societies men will have greater power over the economy. 

In our society, because men have higher income and greater access to the economy, they are said to be dominant. Power distribution in society should not be confused with power struggles at an individual level, although they can be reproduced in a smaller scale as well. 

For example, in many small businesses, the owner and top managers are male, and they will hire women to work for them. [And fire them, too.] Patriarchy can be enforced in a variety of ways, including intimidation of women through violence, sexual assault and other forms of harassment, and the discrediting of their efforts to organize and resist. 

Patriarchal societies are typically more authoritarian and rely heavily on legal-rational modes of organization, show stronger military implication and more reliance on police repression to impose authority. It is a society that tends to hold contempt for women [...]   

We've had it with Kay's smarmy, sneering assumptions about women, cloaked in a veneer of gentility and respect for the "public order" he perceives to be threatened by women stuck in a choice between a rock and a hard place. (Trigger warning: these stories by women who had late second trimester and third trimester abortions are heart-wrenching.)

Depicted below are Jonathan Kay's ideological comrades at arms: men like him, who expect the worst from women; they act pre-emptively against anticipated treacherous female machinations.

This guy, for example:

A prominent Saudi Arabian preacher who raped his 5-year-old daughter before torturing her to death because he reportedly questioned the child’s virginity has been spared a death sentence or even a lengthy prison term after agreeing to pay “blood money” to the slain girl’s mother.

Fayhan al-Ghamdi, a former drug addict who rose to national prominence as an Islamic television preacher, was arrested last November and charged with brutally raping and torturing 5-year-old Lama al-Ghamdi to death. According to a medical report, the little girl had been tortured with whips, electric shocks and an iron. She had broken arms, fractured ribs, a broken back and a crushed skull. She died on October 22.

And these ones: 

There are “two forms of feminism,” Buehner argued. There are “cute” feminists like Sarah Palin who will find jobs in the “marketplace” and “get themselves a husband” but will “never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.” Then, there are the “ugly” feminists whose “lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace.” These “attractively challenged” feminists will only find careers in academia and in government agencies, for instance, “you can run the EPA.”

What all these feminists have in common, Swanson argues, is that “all of them want to be free from the family” and together with “the homosexuals” are “destroying society.” Buehner speculates that in the future, feminism will be remembered as “a time in which women lost the love of their children” and “decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.”

And how about this one:

Diallo, in a civil sexual assault case against Strauss-Kahn, is saying his alleged actions reflected a pattern of misogynistic behaviour. New York City recently passed a law against gender-based violence and there have been other allegations made against Strauss-Kahn by women. Diallo's lawyers wrote in her latest claim: "Strauss-Kahn's conduct towards women generally is, and more specifically his sexual assault of Ms Diallo was, motivated by a gender-animus and a misogynistic attitude."

[...]Soon after his arrest in New York, the French writer Tristane Banon accused Strauss-Kahn of attempting to rape her during an interview in 2003, a claim he called imaginary and slanderous. Prosecutors said they believed the encounter qualified as a sexual assault but the legal time frame to pursue her complaint had elapsed.

Then French authorities lodged preliminary charges of alleged aggravated pimping, claiming Strauss-Kahn was involved in a hotel prostitution ring including prominent figures and police in the northern city of Lille. Lille prosecutors have said they are looking into an allegation that Strauss-Kahn might have been involved in a rape during a sex party in a Washington hotel in 2010.

[...]Diallo's lawyers allude in Tuesday's filing to all those allegations, as well as to an affair Strauss-Kahn had with an IMF subordinate.

Some would disagree that Kay belongs on this spectrum of men who enable, justify, exploit and enforce gender inequality through violent means.

Yet his cavalier disregard for facts in favour of anti-abortion propaganda could inflame mentally unstable individuals, much as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly did when he repeatedly called Dr Tiller a "killer".

Consider this: patriarchy rewards him hugely, when he advocates for a pre-emptive law that undermines women's human rights. 

In fact, Kay gets quite richly paid for pontificating that it's a "moral" question when in fact any decision regarding the termination of a pregnancy in its third trimester should be informed by medical science and ^NOT by the religious quackery of conservative politicians such as Woodworth, Vellacott and Warawa.

Public Women, Private Women

I so do not belong to what this Guardian article calls paparazzi culture. Don't own a camera or cellphone. Don't do Facebook (I did for a period around the 'No Prorogue' stuff, but under my bloggy name). I have never liked having my photo taken -- the front-tooth-less bathtub shot (haha, Mom) was a heavy straw on that camel's back -- so there are just not a lot of pictures of me.

I have uploaded exactly one photo of myself -- that a couple of weeks ago onto LinkedIn. (I had and have severe misgivings about it, but hey, I need work.)

I had never heard of 'creep shots' and 'revenge porn'.

I had of course heard of the Royal Breasts Kerfuffle. But I didn't know this:

I suspect the most arresting photograph of the scandal will actually prove to be the one that shows where the photographer was apparently standing. An 'x' marks a spot on a public road, so far from the chateau where the couple were staying that you can barely make out the building itself. The perspective makes any argument against the right to privacy seem laughable, yet they continue. The editor-in-chief of Denmark's Se og Hør magazine, which published a 16-page supplement of the photos, has implied Kate must accept some responsibility for "willingly revealing her breasts towards a public road".

Really? Towards a public road?

The article describes creep shots and revenge porn and the Internet sites devoted to them. It details the harrowing experiences of young women caught by the creeps. And not just celebs, but ordinary women as well.

But really, this isn't surprising. It's just new technology applied to the male compulsion to control and dominate women, especially our sexuality.

This bit, however, jumped out at me.

The story prompts questions about why there is such a market, and therefore audience, for these pictures. As others have pointed out, it is not as though there is any dearth of bare breasts, consensually exposed and shared, on the internet. The answer involves a familiar combination of desire and humiliation. There is an interest in seeing not just any breasts, but all breasts, a sense that female bodies are public property, fair game – to be claimed, admired and mocked.

All breasts. All women as public property.

That made me think of Gerda Lerner, feminist historian and author of The Creation of the Patriarchy (1986), which I read avidly back then, being as perplexed as anyone as to how the hell it happened.

From an undated interview:

MISHLOVE: You're very explicit about this in your analysis of the ancient cultures that grew up in the Middle East, in ancient Mesopotamia. You point out that the subordination of women's sexual rights preceded even the creation of private property.

LERNER: That's right, and it in fact in my opinion led to what I call the invention of slavery, because it is a fact that has been acknowledged by every historian of slavery that the first slaves in every civilization that we know were women and children. But other historians have stated that fact, but they have never asked the simple question, well, why was that so? What does it signify? And I have occupied myself with that question very thoroughly and studied it.

While her book makes plausible arguments, it's a little short on hard evidence, natch. Until she comes to the Code of Hammurabi.

The Code concerned itself with contracts, property, and family relationships. What struck Lerner was that very harsh penalties were reserved for women who veiled themselves without proper authorization.

Because to be veiled was to be protected.

Since recorded history in Mesopotamia and Persia, the veil was a sign of nobility and seclusion for respectable and noble women.
. . .

Gerda Lerner cites the Code of Hammurabi as the institutionalizing of patriarchal control in the family. The state now controlled who must wear the veil and who must not wear the veil. The veil was a sign of the delineation between elite and common women.

Or between private and public women. To claim privacy for oneself was a serious crime.

The Code dates back to about 1772 BCE.

So, how far have we come, baby?

Judging from the creepsites, revenge porn, Royal Tits, shrieky reactions to Slut Walk, and the current tussle over reproductive rights represented by Woody's Wank, not very fucking far.

We are all still public women. And with new technology, more public than ever.

I watched the debate on M312 yesterday and followed along on Twitter during and afterwards. I read the reports and the comments on them.

I was dismayed by the ignorance and credulity. But what is most dismaying is the rage. Rage that women want to control their own lives. Rage that women want to own themselves. Rage that women want to grant themselves the status of private woman.

Middle-age has granted me a sort of veil. I have a red sun-dress that attracts double-takes. A male glances, registers 'Red Dress and Skin', looks back, registers 'Oh, Old Broad'. I grin at their disappointment. If I'm lucky, they blush.

That's my version of revenge porn.