Status of Chattel

 

 

Truly, I am close to speechless myself.  Helena Guergis worked at the Barrie Rape Crisis Centre, according to her resume.  If this project and its description of it in the Press Release actually represent Ms Guergis' views on causes of male violence against women, I pity the women who had been raped or sexually assaulted who had the terrible luck to talk to her.  The damage done to young women (NOT "girls" btw) who participate in the programme and are taught that what they wear or the expression of their sexuality is responsible for male violence done to them, the damage to them will be simply incalculable.  CONTACT Helena Guergis: 

Contact the Minister of State: http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/pc-ch/minstr/guergis/cntct/index-eng.cfm and the people at Status of Women responsible for this:

  Office of the Minister of State (Status of Women), (819) 956-4000; Nanci-Jean Waugh Director General, Communications and Strategic Planning

 

 

 

 

Thank goodness all members of the House of Commons - except Bill Siksay - voted to raise the age of consent. That should help keep those "girls" from premature sex. This also makes the job of judges easier in rape cases. It's the "girls'" fault.

 

I think we may have a misunderstanding here. I did not read the SWC press release as "laying hypersexualization on the girls" but as acknowledging, as many front-line activists have been doing in Quebec for years, that it is BEING laid on the girls - and indirectly on the boys - by an intensive commercial/social pressure for girls to buy into an artificial role as early as possible. Girls are not responsible for sexist advertising, for girl magazine COSMO-type copy where adult writers lecture pre-teens how to give better blow jobs to keep their boy-friend, for prostitution-inspired window displays in girls' clothing stores, etc. This is what is meant by hypersexualization in Quebec - a process whereby girls are pressured into acting and looking like "Lolitas". Which translates into sexual pressure and often violence from boys. Of course I also want projects to target male abusers, directly; indeed, this is part of what anti-sexualization feminist activists have been doing in Quebec, using traveling displays of hypersexualizing material, conferences, education work, protests, etc. It is all about confronting the male system that dictates the Lolita script.

To go back to the thread title, it is the commercial system that is trying to turn girls into chattel, not Status of Women by agreeing to fund front-line resistance efforts by grass-root feminists.

Research shows that hypersexualization puts pressure on girls to engage prematurely in sexual activity and also promotes violence in intimate relationships.

Do you dispute that research, Unionist? On what basis? Community groups opposing dating violence among youths such as VIRAJE (Violence dans les Relations Amoureuses ches les JEunes) have been documenting for 25 years that abusers being fed images and stories of hypersexualized teens by the media - including pornography - are more likely to abuse women. And that teenage girls whao are fed submission/seduction messages by the publications aimed at their market are less likely to resist sexual pressure and abuse. Deconstructing that propaganda has long been a priority for feminist movements and sex educators in Quebec. I, for one, am glad to see the feds starting to fund that work, that has most often been funded by Quebec or done on a volunteer basis by groups such as the Regroupement des femmes de la région de Matane.

P.S.: Thanks Catchfire; I corrected my mistake.

Martin, that might be what the research says, but that is not what the Press Release says.  Quote:

  " This project aims to promote equitable, non-violent behaviour in the romantic relationships of adolescents by targeting the hypersexualization of girls as a root cause of dating violence. "
 
The "hypersexualization" seems to belong to the girls or to be a characteristic "of" them.  No matter how caused, this DOES NOT work for me as a description of the aim of the project.
 
And again:
 
"Research shows that hypersexualization puts pressure on girls to engage prematurely in sexual activity and also promotes violence in intimate relationships," said Ms. Marie-Laure Leymonie, Coordinator of the Regroupement des femmes de la région de Matane."
 
 
The hypersexualization of *girls* (yuck) promotes violence in intimate relationships?  How so?
 
I would prefer that this is miscommunication.  If so, it is *very* bad miscommunication! And Status of Women, of all departments, ought to know better.

Unionist, when a gang of male kids harasses a pre-teen in primary school to get her to give blowjobs to kids she has never even spoken to, I call that getting her to "engage prematurely in sexual activity". You know this kind of sexist harassment has been happening: parents and progressive feminist sexologists such as Jocelyne Robert have been yelling blue murder about it in Quebec for years. 

Hysperia, if I say the murder or the exploitation of women, do you hear this as "belonging" to them or a "characteristic". The problem may be in cultural divide: French Quebec feminists have been defining "hypersexualisation" as an active social process, instilling an articial role, indeed derailing sexual development in youths. It's a substantive derived from an active verb: "hypersexualiser" and it acknowledges an exploitative process.

Of course, if one only looks at the result, one can see an hypersexual dress or demeanor as "belonging" to the girls that buy these messages. The Matane feminists are continuing a long-standing resistance progress that identifies the vectors of these messages, the businesses that profit from instilling alienated roles early on.

And yes, theleftyinvestor, male kids need to take responsibility for their abusive behaviour; how better than by funding and empowering the very people they most oppress, young women, in order to confront them with this educational campaign, have the boys face their own upbringing by the sexist commercial system that feeds them pornographic/lying images of women's sexuality, and their assaultive behaviour that derives from it? I have ben doing this kind of challenge-the-boys educational work in Montreal and Quebec schools, and I know how essential to do it as early as possible before mentalities are set and if possible, to do so within their own community. Which is why I am excited to see young women be supported as agents of challenge and change.

 

Martin, if I say a young woman has been hypersexualized, is she not hypersexualized? If a woman is murdered, is she not a murdered woman.

Of course she is, but you are not "laying the problem on her", you acknowledge an external agent and you are not attacking women if you take steps to address her murder(er).

 

Well Martin.  Very unfortunately, I can't read French.    I wish you would help us out a bit further by helping to connect those two things - the hypersexualization of young women that seems to be a causal factor in the experience of male violence.  Heterosexual sexual activity clearly leads to contact between men and women and for women, that's dangerous, undoubtedly.  The more intense the relationship is the more likely it is to provoke male violence, probably.  So it does seem obvious that if young women are involved in sexual activity with young men at an early age, they will experience increased levels of a certain kind of male violence at earlier ages.  That all seems obvious enough.  As to whether that is a necessary result of early sexual activity, I guess I would hope not.  Not necessarily is what I would want to tell young women.  It's also really clear that women of very young ages experience all kinds of male violence whether they are voluntarily involved in sexual activities or not.  I dunno.  What you're saying seems to be fairly complex and doesn't lend itself to a press release.  Someone certainly f'ed up somewhere.

I have to leave it there.  Vacation!

Maybe male violence against women has more to do with how boys are socialized than how girls are socialized.

 

This is blaming the victim.

"Prematurely" means exactly what the report says and of course this is an issue for a women's org to deal with! Do you really think no age is too young? Do you really not think 14 was too young as an age of consent?

This report was badly worded and does not address the actions of males (as it should!). However, there is a huge issue with hypersexualization of girls and women and it is not their fault in the least. martin details this above.

And Michelle, when I worked in child welfare I heard of just such a phenomenon from a few 15 year old girls. This was not the sensationalized version involving the whole school presented on US talkshows as the fault of slutty girls.

 This was girls with low self-esteem, emotionally abusive and absent parents in a culture filled with messages telling them that the way to be woman, cool, modern, etc. was to get it on right now and pleasure that man! This is why I spoke in the other thread about the "orgasm a day keep the doctor away" message and how destructive this can be for people who aren't consenting adults yet.   "No means no" does not have much resonance when girls are taught that it is not healty, cool, or womanly to say no.

Yeah, a social conservative women's organization, lecturing them to save their virginity for their hubbies.

I don't appreciate rhetorical questions. You apparently approve of this "premature" concept. You tell me what age is too young.

Did you grow up in a nunnery or something? 14 was the legal age of consent until those friends of women and young girls - Vic Toews and Stephen Harper - changed it to 16. Of course, all the craven cowards of House of Commons (except Bill Siksay, who was disciplined for his principled stand by Jack Layton) got down on their knees and kissed the backsides of Toews and Harper, because they were afraid of mentalities like yours.

Hope my point of view didn't come across too too subtly here.

The entire tenor of your comments - and of the SOW press release - is to treat women as the objects of moralistic lecturing and "protection". Count me out.

 

 

It is not about lecturing girls to save it for their hubbies. This is not what I believe. It is about waiting until they are out of childhood and adolescence, knowing what a healthy relationship looks like and knowing that their pleasure is important. It is about teaching girls to wait until they are mature and old enough to make that decision. By my phrasing, it is clear that I know the age used to be 14. It should be 16 and I am glad that the NDP for the most part realized this. Do you really think it is a good idea for 14 year old girls to be taught that "an orgasm a day is healthy" with whatever age man who comes their way?

hysperia, I am not saying that girls who do that have those issues - I was pointed out that those issues can cause that behaviour.

I know that men would like girls and women to be sexually available for them from the age of young teens, but women can fight back.  Yes, I do believe that teenage girls need to be protected from horny men and that adult aged women should be protected from rapists and violent offenders.

Yes, by browbeating their youth and LGBT caucuses into submission - then whipping their caucus to vote for Harper's bill - and disciplining Bill Siksay for daring to break ranks. I linked to Corvin's article the other day. Interested babblers can read more here [these are headlines of some of the articles at the link]:

 

Where did I say that that was not a good idea? We were talking about adolescent and teenage girls' sexual relationships with boys and men, the age of consent and the media/societal pressure on girls and women to pleasure men. I think girls should be taught about self-pleasure as part of sex-ed and that it is positive and healthy. I am not sure where on earth you got the idea that I thought masturbation was a bad thing.   Well a 12 year-old is a child who has not matured. She has no regrets and knows how to handle adults decisions? Well, why do we even define 12 year olds as children or give them special rights and protections under the law? We may as well just make the child welfare cutoff age at 12 then, eh? After all they are mature and able to make their own decisions and care for themselves then right?

Ghislaine, you made reference to teens learning that a daily orgasm might be good for them. Orgasms can occur through masturbation. What's the problem?

 

Ghislaine, the then 12 year old is now an adult. She did not see losing her virginity as an adult decision. She wasn't looking to get married.

Ghislaine, one is used to hearing such cracks from the religious right. Sorry to say that.

Before, you rhetorically asked me if I thought 14 was too young...

Would you like to return to the 1950s? Young women were doing very well then. They were protected from everything. Primarily, from themselves.

 

I'm not talking about your religious views. And I share writer's views, so you can compound your shock. What do you plan to do with all these young teens screwing each other? Teach them that it's a plot by advertisers? Same question to Refuge. You both seem to think that sex is a bad thing for very young people. What about kissing? Holding hands? Reading Marx?

ETA: I don't want to demean Refuge's personal account. But I would like to suggest that she not impose it as a conclusion on others.

 

Unionist, you can read French. Have you gone to read the Regroupement des femmes de Matane's project description? I can't believe you wold frame it as "a social conservative women's organization, lecturing them to save their virginity for their hubbies"... Talk about cheap shots. If you want to take on Dr. Phil, by all means do so, but please dont use Matane feminists for target practice instead. I find the assumptions behind the present discussion very disturbing.

You quote one person who as an adult states to you that she does not regret losing her virginity.  I know no one who was ready to lose their virginity at 12.  I know 3 girls that lost their virginity before the age of 13.

The first girl was abused by her father physically and was looking for love which lead to her decision to have sex.  All of the relationships she has been in have been abusive since then.

The second girl gave into her 16 year old boyfriend.  She got pregnant at 14 and had to have an abortion. Her boyfriend at that time left her and she suffers from depression and talks about that abortion and what she percieves to be her baby to this day more than 15 years later.

The third girl was innocent and thought she was ready because of what the media told her and what her boyfriend told her.  She had recieved no sex education at that point except that the kissing she was doing with her boyfriend was also a sin.  It was very different from what she thought it was and she came out of the experience with the same feelings as a rape victim even though she consented.  She became involved in relationships after that, marring twice and had three children but angrily divorced her last husband, became a Christian Fundamentalist and now leads talks on how evil sex is and how it is just men trying to take power over women and victimize them and uses all of her relationships to illustrate the point.

For the woman you quoted sex may not have been an adult decision but for a lot and dare I say most it is a decision that has far reaching implications well passed childhood and into adulthood that pre teens and teens need to be educated on before they make that decision.

How is believing in and protecting the rights of children to be children a desire to return to the 1950s? The 1950s had no sex education (particularly none that was masturbation-positive) and expected women to remain virgins until marriage. I am not advocating any of this. I am advocating teaching children to wait until they have matured to make a responsible decision. 16-18 seems like a good benchmark. And to teach them that they don't have to do it, they don't have to give in the pressure and that their self-pleasure is important.

The pressure on girls right now from popular culture to be thin, sexually available, pleasurable to their men, to act like a porn star, etc., etc. is enormous. The report is right to characterize it as hypersexualization. However, this report is completely wrong to say that this is a huge contributor to violence against girls and women. It is never the fault of women based on what they wear, say, etc.

At any age? Any age at all? There is no age that is too young? Lots of girls are getting their periods and experiencing puberty earlier and earlier - age 9 is not too young? You cannot see any reason whatsoever why parents and schools would or should want to "coerce" children into not having sex? You cannot see how immature children thinking they should put out is exactly what men want?

[Re Ghislaine's posts:] Why are we debating with a social conservative viewpoint? Maybe I should have said, "return to the 1850s". Ghislaine, I have daughters. They lost their sacred precious gift at ages which would no doubt cause you cardiac arrest. They're doing fine, now, thank you, recovering in intensive care.

 

I was writing my "sermon" as you wrote your follow up.  I still maintain that most girls are not ready at 12 and by saying that some girls are ready it somehow reflects badly on a program like this is wrong.

How about 14, Refuge?

 

This would be interesting in an "age of consent" thread - I am sure you've had some. I would take this opportunity to raise a few feminist points about the twisted notion of "consent," that enthrones sexual pressure from the overage folks hitting on underage folks (the ambit of that legislation). But this is probably beyond the radar of our 'sexual liberals' morality and their pipe paradigm of equalitarian reciprocity, the data be damned...

In the context of the Regroupement des femmes de Matane project, a necessary resource to oppose such pressure and allow young people to disclose dating violence (which is the focus of the question "Et toi ton couple, ça clic?"), it sounds like inappropriate drift.

 

You may be right - it's drift in this thread - but it certainly has exposed how important the whole subject matter is. The commodification of women, their transformation into sexual objects, their dehumanization and degradation on one hand - vs. the disenfranchisement of youth, sexual prudery, social conservatism, homophobia, etc. - there's no reason why these struggles have to be put into opposition to each other, but it's clear from this thread how complex and sensitive the issues are.

Strong suggestion: Stick to people's views about people's views, and don't personalize this. If someone presents a view that sounds prudish to me, and I say, "That view is prudery reminiscent of the religious right", that's not venom against anyone. I respect Ghislaine and Refuge, but if they want to present views, let them prepare to defend them.

No, they do not have to be put into opposition of each other. However, how does one define sexual prudery? I do not think that a belief that children (as defined by child welfare laws and age of consent laws) should not be having sex (other than self-pleasure) is prudery or social conservatism. Prudery is believing that everyone should wait until marriage.

As a feminist who openly discusses women's sexual issues and males pressuring therin I am not suprised.  As I noted in my previous post men don't realize the effect that male privlidge has on women ability to openly state issues in mixed company.  Women don't want to be seen as broken or less than so everything is fine with them in the sexuality department because society says that everyone is suppose to love sex.

When you bring up that this isn't always the case and that in a lot of cases women who have sex to early do it because of pressures that have been put on them by a society that is centered around male privlidge men don't want to believe that they may have been a part of that (either on purpose or inadvertanlty) so they immediately go to defenses saying that it can't be true.

They cling onto the notion that we are saying that women are victims which can't be true because then men (them) are the preditors.  In reality the argument isn't that women are victims the reality is that it is somewhere in the middle.  Part of it is them being victims of society but it is not the whole puzzle, just a piece, and for some women that peiece is larger than others.  And,unfortunatelty, in most cases the younger you are, the bigger that piece is in most cases.

edited to add: I don't sense venom here in this discussion, and rarely do so for me venom would be the wrong word but I do sense resistence to what I have stated above

edited to add a second time: which I always welcome because usually when there is resistance to something it is because there is fear about what you will find on the other side of that resistance. 

Well that's good because I did not sense any resistance from you in what I was saying, in fact your statements agree with much of what I am saying in that there needs to be an open space for women to be able to truely make that decisions. 

I was actually talking about Unionists posts asking me what I thought we should do with "all these teens screwing eachother" and that I not impose my conclusions on others when talking about creating a space for teens (which at this point I am assuming he did not get from my post at that time) and asking me about specific ages and then I also compared with other discussions I had with men.

I can only assume that you thought that I was attacking you which is why you keep using the word sermon and inserting words like cute, when in reality I was not.  The only time I refered to your post directly was when I was creating a space for women who don't have a good experience with sex before the age of 13 when you created a space for those that do and then a follow up to expain why I created that space in the context of this discussion.

Ghislaine, with respect, your comment that sex between a 20 year old and a 14 year old is "child abuse" and should be criminal confirms not only what I said about the religious right, but about your sad inexperience with the real world. You shouldn't impose your morality on others.

As Refuge pointed out, only the 20 year old is guilty of a criminal act. I do not have "sad inexperience with the real world". In fact, I have far too much experience with child abuse.  What is the law if not "imposing the morality on others"? There are those who believe that child porn is a-ok. Should we not impose our morality on them? The right of children to be children, as well as the concept of childhood and child welfare laws are fairly recent developments.

I am not religious in any way, so you can stop smearing with this (as an atheist I consider this a smear). I consistently defend the right of adults to prostitute themselves if they wish on this site, so the prude label is inaccurate as well.  I will repeat: Believing in the rights and protection of children is not prudish.

 

I'm with you, Unionist.

Well after suffering Unionist's blatant misinformation about children under 14 being criminals when adults hit on them, the least I can do is post my translation of the Matane project description, which should clarify that a few of you have been slagging an excellent feminist initiative on the strength of the Toronto Star's misrepresentation of it. Just goes to show one is never wary enough of the MSM...

And how are things going in YOUR relationship?

Project Description

 

In recent years, a growing media trend tends to depict girls as sex objects and this at an increasingly young age. For Rimouski's Rape Crisis Centre (Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel), there is no doubt that the early sexualization of girls is a consequence of our society's hypersexualization, and that this hypersexualization is a contributing factor to sexual assaults.1 In 2008, more than 16,000 Quebec women have knocked on the door of a women's centre for reasons related to violence.2

The beginning of adolescence is acknowledged as a period of openness where youths are receptive to the establishment of healthy relationships and to non-violent conflict. A certain number of changes occurring at adolescence - e.g. the apprenticeship of autonomy and the displacement of dependency from parents to peers - make this period especially crucial in learning to establish non-violent relationships.3

As far back as 2001, a survey we organized in Matane among 552 youths aged 14 to 20 determined that 25% of respondents, most of them girls, spoke of violent behaviours in their romantic relationship. In 2009, we must more than ever promote both equalitarian models and behaviours, not only with regard to sexuality but also in perspectives regarding dating relationships between youths.

The project entitled "And how are things going in YOUR relationship?" is an interactive, multi-year (2009-2012) endeavour, that will be developed with female teenagers of the Matane region. For maximum impact, it is important to us to obtain an active interaction and participation of female teenagers, both in the design and rollout of the program.

The educational project "And how are things going in YOUR relationship?" aims to promote equitable, non-violent behaviour in the romantic relationships of adolescents. By putting out information and creating an education tool, the project will ensure support and mentoring to female teenagers, in order to prevent dating violence.

The project's specific objectives are the following:
1. To describe the impact of hypersexualization on self-esteem, to highlight the various forms of violence in romantic relationships and the possibility of non-violent conflict resolution.
2. To create and distribute an education to promote equalitarian and non-violent behaviours in the context of youth romantic relationships.
3. To create a mentoring process.
4. To have female mentors act as community outreach workers, using the project's education tool in the various communities of the Matane region.

Footnotes:
1 Regional Forum on Hypersexualization, Rimouski, May 16-17, 2007
2 l'Intersyndicale des femmes - January 2009
3 Wolfe, Wekerle & Scott, 1997

Partnering with the Matane Youth Centre, La Lucarne
To achieve this project that mainly focuses on young girls, we decided to work cooperatively with La Lucarne, Matane's youth drop-in centre. Thus, the youth outreach worker will share her working hours between the Regroupement des femmes and La Lucarne. Similarly, youths will have activities both at the Women's Centre and at the Youth Centre.

Active participation of youths
To maximize impact, we find it paramount to For maximum impact, it is important to us to obtain an active interaction and participation of female teenagers, both in the design and rollout of the program. This is why we have chosen to create education tools and to organize a mentoring process rather than organize workshops. We know that the information will be conveyed much better if it is transmitted by youths themselves, especially during teenage years.

During the first year, teenagers will create and distribute an information brochure on the link between hypersexualization and violence in dating relationships (in the form of a quiz + info). On the second year, young women will create an information tool (video, comic book, play...) and outreach with it among youths. During the third year, female teenagers will be trained to become mentors and thus equip their peers with tools in their living environment. Young males will also be able to participate in this project, especially at the Youth Centre.

Cooperation with our partners
Of course, this project involves a knowledge transfer component. The tools created will be distributed among our partners:
Locally: Committee on hypersexualization, community organizations and school environments.
Regionally: Regional coalition table on violence, Regional tables of Lower St-Laurent women's centres and women's organizations.
Nationally : L'R des centres de femmes du Québec, Status of Women Canada.

For information, please contact :
Lucie Watts, 418-562-6443
Youth outreach worker in charge of the project

 

With the advent of cheap digital cameras and cameras built into cellphones, lots of folk are experimenting with taking pics of themselves having sex (since there's no longer any need to bring rolls of film to the pharmacy for development, nor the high cost of polaroid film).

So is it safe to assume that if a 14 year old is capable of consenting to (or even initiating) sex, they should also be permitted to photograph themself doing it?  Two 20 year olds can, right? 

Oh! And thanks for the translation. Very much appreciated. I'll get back to it when I have some time!

Thanks martin for the translation.

Here is a response from a dedicated Quebec feminist to the announcement of this project's funding. Relayed with her permission:

 

Quel beau projet! J'espère qu'il servira de source d'inspiration pour d'autres projets du genre à travers le Québec et le Canada! De toute évidence, il n'y a pas grand chose à attendre du système scolaire alors la communauté est aussi bien de prendre le relais! N'hésitons pas à faire circuler l'information et à sensibiliser les groupes, organismes et établissements que ça pourrait intéresser (écoles, maison de jeunes, centres communautaires, etc). Il est important d'impliquer les jeunes des deux sexes car les garçons comme les filles ont tout à gagner d'une culture égalitaire!

Il nous faut aussi lutter pour convaincre les médias de parler plus souvent d'hypersexualisation et leur faire réaliser que le problème ne concerne pas que l'image de la femme dans les médias. Lorsqu'on aborde le sujet, celui-ci est trop souvent réduit à une question de centimètres de peau nue. On parle trop peu de sujets pouvant être reliés à l'hypersexualisation comme les comportements sexuels à risque, la violence dans les relations "amoureuses", les pressions sociales que vivent les filles pour toujours être en couple, les troubles alimentaires, la dépression, etc.

Stéphanie

 

it makes no effort to combat or even gainsay those who are openly engaging in the hypersexualization of children...

Yes, it does. Hypersexualization is understood as a social process and this education tool will articulate how and whence it plays out. all the onus is on victims or potential victims of, in this case, assault, to deffend themselves How can you say this when project participants will be going out and confronting the causes and the effects of this process, as subjects? continuing and unchallenged atmosphere Challenging and stopping this atmosphere it is exacty what the project will be doing. So, a few government dollars set against the kabillions spent by advertisers and production companies. And the kabillion words put out by defenders of the system and critics of SWC. Of course, it isn't enough but is it a reason to slag the women trying and the funds they have finally obtained to do so? How would have the money flowed if an aspect of this program targeted advertisers on TLC's "Todler's and Tiaras", or provided an critique of Much Music's view of sexuality promoted by Tia Tequilla? Where do you get that the program won't do this once kids start determining the sources and vehicles of attempts at hypersexualizing them? Indeed, the Rimouski women have long been at the forefront of in-your-face action against sexist advertising in Quebec. There lie the roots of this project. I am really stunned at the arrogance shown by Anglo-Canadian males here to such a worthy project by front-line Quebec anti-VAW activists. Maybe you need to protect the intellectual comfort of thinking that the feds cannot be pressured to do anything right, even once in a blue moon. I sure hope those armchairs are comfortable...

 

I'm an old lefty who wears his hair too long, and my trouser cuffs too tight,  Unionist. 

It's not my intention to totally take a crap on this whole program, or any other "progressive" initiative.  However, like the good boys and girls we've all become on the left, it really does nothing to challenge actual power.

We've become a fire department in a society that has legalized arson.

 

See, Tommy? Either stay out, or practise name-calling one-upmanship. It's a tough choice.

 

To call arrogance is an ad hominem attack???

I don't like your fashion business mister
And I don't like these drugs that keep you thin
I don't like what happened to my sister
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

You're talking about situations where children were forced into unsafe jobs?  I think everyone deserves protection from that.  I also know that people under the age of consent can and do consent to sex.

Thanks Unionist. I am sorry myself that I lumped you with Anglo Canadians: you deserved better.

Your distinction about whether young girls have sex of their own volition or are coerced into it by a sexualizing environment is well-taken - but not always easy to ascertain. And feminists have made the point, accurately I think, that when this happens before girls have found enough self-esteem to resist social/peer/male pressure, their agency is questionable. Hence the need to confront that pressuring environment where it is most egregious,as I think you'll agree the Matane women plan to do by empowering girls. i

IF the Toronto Star and the people who have bought its line do not shame SWC away from funding them.

 

Well put, I totally agree.

I'm guessing you have your own answer to that, Unionist.

 

By the time my daughter was 7 or 8 she was aware of various sexual practices because I always answered her questions as they came up to whatever degree she wanted answers.  As she aged I never felt any need to discuss particular sexual acts on an individual basis although I did discuss the pressures to engage in sexual activity she might experience.  We talked about the various possible outcomes to sexual activity both physical and emotional as well as the right and wrong reasons to participate in sexual activity regardless of the degree.  That is, it's just as wrong to kiss someone because you feel pressured into it as it is to have sex with someone because you feel pressured into it.  We discussed the various lines used in order to exert that pressure and what the actual statistics are concerning sexual activity versus the impression given by the media that "everyone" is doing it.

One thing I explained is that it was normal for her to want to dress attractively but that it would be interpreted as sexy by some people who would interpret it as meaning she was ready for or wanted sex.  I could help her but that ultimately she would have to find the balance she was comfortable with.

In terms of what activity is appropriate at what age we can't draw a hard and fast line for that anymore than we can for driving.  We have to choose an arbitrary age based on what we believe is reasonably fair.  That means some people will get a drivers licence too young and others will have to wait longer than they should given their level of maturity. 

I'm a big fan of "Romeo and Juliet" clauses.

The project's organizers give credit to several levels of partners:

(In passing, note that "national" means both Quebec and Canada to someone in Matane. But I am ignorant of the meaning of TOC here; I doubt it means "Trouble obsessionnel-compulsif." Is it "Table des organizations communitaires?")

Note that the first sentence above is attributed to "Forum régional sur l’hypersexualisation des 16 et 17 mai 2007 à Rimouski." Could someone tell us whether the conclusion "the early sexualization of girls is a consequence of the hypersexualization of our society, and that hypersexualization is a factor contributing to sexual assault" is a social conservative view, or one shared by rape crisis centres in the rest of Canada? Their goals seem to me to be the usual ones of any local women's group, but perhaps I'm missing something. 

If hypersexualization is understood as an active social process - as the Matane women make clear it is - and not one of that process's results - hypersexuality, i.e. girls dressing sexy or acting out -, then wouldn't yoiu say say that this factor is unequivocallly on the system's side of the table, not women's?

To use an unperfect and limited analogy, would you agree, for instance, that the racializing of people contributes to racist assaults against them, and that it is not to blame victims to point to their racialization as a contributing factor to their abuse, beside the abuser's agency?

 

So Martin and Refuge both agree that hypersexualization contributes to girls dressing sexy which contributes to sexual assault - but it's society's fault, not the girl's fault, so it's ok to say that. Have I got that right?

I agree that the analogy is imperfect and limited, because girls can supposedly dress differently, but race and racialization are not that easy to modify. Hence, in the case of girls, the question gets raised as to whether and how to teach/preach/blame regarding dress styles. It doesn't arise with race.

 

I agree that the analogy is imperfect and limited, because girls can supposedly dress differently, but race and racialization are not that easy to modify.

It seems to me you are confounding race and racialization.

Read my post again, that is not at all what I said. When you switch my "and" for your "which" it changes my post to your meaning, not mine.

Is that chip on your shoulder making you uncomfortable, Unionist? Everyone can see the answer to that in the rest of Refuge's sentence. Because it pushes boys to objectify women through the various messages they receive - through porn, beer ads, sexist advertising, peer pressure, etc. - that it's OK, indeed required, to treat girls as sex objects, that they love abuse even if they claim not to, etc. etc. If you disagree with that reading, why not offer an alternative view instead of acting inquisitorial?

 

Very well put, thank you. I would the very important note that the accepted age to view and treat girls as sex objects keeps getting younger and younger, as well as the age at which they being to internalize these sexist messages.

I thought you were getting civil for a while. I'm sure an additional effort can get you back there.

Sure thing. My view is that the commodification and objectification and hypersexualization of women is a real, huge, and serious problem of the society - that it leads not only to assaults but to every kind of discrimination and humiliation and subordination and marginalization of women. And I am very suspicious of suggestions that the principal way of addressing this societal issue is for "us" to "teach" girls how they should dress and what sexual activities they should engage in.

Clear enough?

 

I was not referring to the Matane project - I've already expressed my appreciation for that - and what I wrote is not a "summation" of the project nor is it intended to be. I'm referring to a subtext in some of the posts in this thread. I don't want to personalize this issue. But you asked me to write what I believed rather than interrogating people, so I did. I'll repeat it for utter clarity:

So you see, Martin, if you agree with what I just wrote, then it would be silly to have a dispute over it, no? Likewise with Refuge or Ghislaine or anyone else. If you don't agree, that's fine too. Just let me know why not.

 

Hey, I have no idea what this thread is about anymore! And it's at 112 posts!

So I'm closing it.

It is definitely not about the chosen focus of the first post. And I would be thrilled to bits to see it closed.

men and boys objectify women, not everyone else.

The original post is about the Conservative government using reactionary language that, I continue to believe, doesn't truly reflect the project.

 

This is now how the program is represented to all Canadians who do not speak French.

 

You don't see this as a problem? You don't see this a marker on the continued decline of the Status of Women?

 

Debating the exact age that an angel can dance on a pin a person can start to fuck is so not what this thread was meant to be.

 

EDITED TO ADD: Strikethrough isn't showing for some reason. In my preview screen "an angel can dance on a pin" has a line through it.

martin, until you apologize, I'm done corresponding with you.

Well, I'll live with that. If the line that you feel I should apologize about is this one "IF the Toronto Star and the people who have bought its line do not shame SWC away from funding them." I stand by it. I simply disagree with your sense of smell if you reduce the issue to that. And there is a very real risk that SWC will be intimidated away from funding this important grassroots feminist project.

 

 

remind, I do believe in solidarity. And I don't believe in cartoons.

Oh, that...! Of course they could and they can. I am quite ready to apologize for a sloppy generalization on my part. Indeed, Unionist was hurt that I lumped him along with Anglo-Canadians when he has shown himself to be a great Anglo-Quebecois. That quip was certainly the weakest part of my argument. Still, it is significant, isn't it, that many Anglo-Canadians had themselves a hatefest about a Quebecois project whose project description they apparently didn't even bother reading and many of which resist to this day the fact that it contradicts their suspicion. That speaks to a Canada-Quebec divide that I regret but cannot but observe. But there ARE exceptions, so my generalization was wrong, ill-advised and I regret that it hurt you and obscured a more issue-based disagreement that I feel I took great pains to try and wind down.

 

It helped that you finally identified it. "Anglo-Canadian male" an insult... whodathunk?

... and also. Cute. It wasn't the anglo-Canadian male part that was the issue, martin.

 

I'm back to deciding I'm through with discussions with you.

Sorry for my confusion -  I took your participation in that thread drift to mean that you wanted to talk about that, not that it was wrecking the thread.

It hasn't been mentioned, but I find that the argument around the Matane women's project is quite similar to the usual battle lines between radicals and liberals over prostitution: some deeming it a system to be attacked and some deeming it a personal choice to be given free rein. In both instances, there is a system at work but individuals internalize and act out its directives, so action against it can appear, at a glance, to be action against these individuals, disrespectful of their agency.