SEX - Here is a wee tidbit for you. I am thinking about having a child. Not adoption either. Via a sperm bank. No sexual acts required.
Let me explain... I am in my 30s. My (egad) biological clock is ticking. I have no intention of marrying a man, but I would be tempted to get married to my partner. I might even propose to her when the time is right. Regardless, the choice to have a child would still be mine to make. I know my partner also wants children, although we do differ on the number (she wants 2, I prefer 1).
Future Note: She could pull a fast one and get pregnant too, thus we would each have 1. It would be entirely her choice.
But you see therein lies an important truth. I am planning to get pregnant. In contrast for many women it seems to happen by accident. Often causing the need for an abortion if the woman is financially unable to support a child by herself.
Now there is nothing wrong with wanting to have children. Its a choice like any other. There's also nothing wrong with adoption.
For me its nothing to do with blood or genetics. I don't care about that. I am really quite fascinated however with the concept of bearing a child and going through the whole pregnancy process.
I want the morning sickness. I want the mood swings. I want people telling me I look radiant. I want people asking me when the baby is due. I want to discuss all my options with a doctor. Call it part social experiment / part maternal need.
And once the child is born I want to go through the whole breastfeeding process, the weaning, the raising, the whole teenage years and eventually empty nest syndrome. I want it all. (I may eat these words later, but for now I am willing to say 'em.)
And because I can plan my pregnancy it also means I have complete control over my circumstances. I know how much savings I have. I know I can depend on my partner for emotional and financial support, especially if we get married. I can research government support and heck, even government research grants since I am a bio-chemist. As a scientist I can monitor my health throughout the pregnancy and report on my status (I may need to make a separate blog for this).
I should note that I will need to find a doctor who can cope with me being 'a difficult patient' to work with. I know a little too much about the inner workings of the human body, the various hormones and chemicals at work, and how they effect the childbearing process.
To be continued...
The Truth about 50 Years of Coronation Street
ENTERTAINMENT - If you love British television, you probably also love Coronation Street. It is after all, 50 years old, as of December 2010.
In addition to being popular and being able to stand the test of time, Coronation Street, as a pop culture icon, has also been the subject of feminist debate for generations.
Right from the beginning Coronation Street became known for its portrayal of strong female characters, both good and bad ones. Strong female characters like Ena Sharples, Elsie Tanner, Annie Walker, Hilda Ogden became household names in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s.
Despite criticism about stereotypes (the writers of Coronation Street maintain they set the mould years ago, so if there is any stereotypes its because "Corrie" was the first to do it, and everybody else is copying Coronation Street) the show has created a realistic portrayal of relationships, domestic abuse, affairs, child rearing issues, and so forth.
ie. A recent story line about breast cancer and breast implants, and the parents responses to their daughter wanting breast implants.
What you have to remember is that Britain is birthplace of modern feminism. From A Vindication of the Rights of Woman to the Spice Girls, Britain is a constant source of girl power.
In addition to being popular and being able to stand the test of time, Coronation Street, as a pop culture icon, has also been the subject of feminist debate for generations.
Right from the beginning Coronation Street became known for its portrayal of strong female characters, both good and bad ones. Strong female characters like Ena Sharples, Elsie Tanner, Annie Walker, Hilda Ogden became household names in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s.
Despite criticism about stereotypes (the writers of Coronation Street maintain they set the mould years ago, so if there is any stereotypes its because "Corrie" was the first to do it, and everybody else is copying Coronation Street) the show has created a realistic portrayal of relationships, domestic abuse, affairs, child rearing issues, and so forth.
ie. A recent story line about breast cancer and breast implants, and the parents responses to their daughter wanting breast implants.
What you have to remember is that Britain is birthplace of modern feminism. From A Vindication of the Rights of Woman to the Spice Girls, Britain is a constant source of girl power.
The Truth about the Montreal Massacre
CANADA - 21 years ago today (December 6th 1989) 14 women were shot dead by 25-year-old gunman Marc Lépine. He was carrying a Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 rifle (he bought it legally 15 days earlier) and a hunting knife. He shot 28 people before he killed himself.
Marc Lépine arrived began shortly after 4 PM in the afternoon at the École Polytechnique, an engineering school affiliated with the Université de Montréal. At first he went to the registrar and sat there for a time, rummaging in a plastic bag. He later left and went to the 2nd floor mechanical engineering class of about sixty students at approx. 5:10 PM. He walked up to the student presenting and asked everyone to stop everything, ordering the men and women to opposite sides of the room. When nobody moved at first he fired a shot into the ceiling.
With 9 women on one side and 50 men on the other, Marc Lépine ordered the men to leave. In French he asked the women if they knew why they were there.
"Non," the women replied.
"I am fighting feminism," Marc Lépine said.
"Look, we are just women studying engineering, not necessarily feminists ready to march on the streets to shout we are against men, just students intent on leading a normal life," said one of the students, Nathalie Provost.
"You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists," Marc Lépine said.
Marc Lépine then opened fire, shooting each woman once. He started from the left and went to right. 6 of the women died from their wounds. 3 were wounded and survived.
He then stopped and wrote sh** twice on a student's project.
Marc Lépine then went into the 2nd floor corridor where he shot and wounded 3 more students. At one point he stopped in the staircase and reloaded.
He then went back towards the room with the 3 injured women, but they had locked the door. He shot at the door 3 times but it stayed locked.
Marc Lépine then went along the corridor, shooting at more people and wounded another. He stopped at the financial services office where he shot through the window of the locked door and killed a woman within.
He next downstairs to the 1st floor cafeteria. He shot a woman near the kitchen and wounded another student. People were fleeing in all directions.
He entered a storage room where two women were hiding. He shot and killed them both.
He told two students, male and female, to come out from under a table. He let them go.
Marc Lépine went to the escalator that goes to the 3rd floor. He shot and wounded another woman and shot 2 male students as well.
Lépine then walked up an escalator to the 3rd floor where he shot and wounded one
On the 3rd floor he entered a classroom and told 3 students to "get out". He shot and wounded Maryse Leclair. He fired at students in the front row. He shot and killed two more women who tried to escape out the door.
He moved towards a group of women, wounded three and killing a 4th.
Maryse Leclair was crying for help. Marc Lépine took out his hunting knife and stabbed her three times, killing her.
He then took off his hat, wrapped his coat around his rifle, said "Oh sh**!" and then shot himself in the head with his rifle.
The attack had lasted 20 minutes.
Approx. 60 bullets remained in the boxes he was carrying with him. He had killed 14 women (13 students and 1 employee) and injured 14 other people, including 4 men.
Why? Because Marc Lépine hated feminists and he blamed feminists for ruining his life. His suicide letters contained a list of nineteen Quebec women whom Lépine wished to kill because he considered them to be feminists.
Lépine's father was an abusive woman-hater and later became a deadbeat dad. His parents later separated and his mother had to work constantly to pay for her children. Marc Lépine tried to join the Canadian Army in 1980-81, but was rejected according to his suicide letter because he was "anti-social". According to a police biography released Marc Lépine was intelligent but troubled, and hated feminists, career women and women in traditionally male occupations, such as women in the police force.
Lépine applied to the École Polytechnique in 1986 and in 1989 but lacked two courses required for admission. He completed 1 course in the winter of 1989, 9 months before the massacre. He could have taken the other course needed to get into the program and eventually succeeded in his career goals.
But instead he got frustrated and decided to take his frustration out on women.
THE AFTERMATH
The Montreal Massacre was the largest attack in Canada specifically aimed at women. The day (December 6th) is now commemorated as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
The incident led to stronger gun control laws in Canada and introduced tactical changes in police response to shootings, something which benefited the police response to other shootings. (See Killer Goth in Montreal.)
Marc Lépine arrived began shortly after 4 PM in the afternoon at the École Polytechnique, an engineering school affiliated with the Université de Montréal. At first he went to the registrar and sat there for a time, rummaging in a plastic bag. He later left and went to the 2nd floor mechanical engineering class of about sixty students at approx. 5:10 PM. He walked up to the student presenting and asked everyone to stop everything, ordering the men and women to opposite sides of the room. When nobody moved at first he fired a shot into the ceiling.With 9 women on one side and 50 men on the other, Marc Lépine ordered the men to leave. In French he asked the women if they knew why they were there.
"Non," the women replied.
"I am fighting feminism," Marc Lépine said.
"Look, we are just women studying engineering, not necessarily feminists ready to march on the streets to shout we are against men, just students intent on leading a normal life," said one of the students, Nathalie Provost.
"You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists," Marc Lépine said.
Marc Lépine then opened fire, shooting each woman once. He started from the left and went to right. 6 of the women died from their wounds. 3 were wounded and survived.
He then stopped and wrote sh** twice on a student's project.Marc Lépine then went into the 2nd floor corridor where he shot and wounded 3 more students. At one point he stopped in the staircase and reloaded.
He then went back towards the room with the 3 injured women, but they had locked the door. He shot at the door 3 times but it stayed locked.
Marc Lépine then went along the corridor, shooting at more people and wounded another. He stopped at the financial services office where he shot through the window of the locked door and killed a woman within.
He next downstairs to the 1st floor cafeteria. He shot a woman near the kitchen and wounded another student. People were fleeing in all directions.
He entered a storage room where two women were hiding. He shot and killed them both.
He told two students, male and female, to come out from under a table. He let them go.
Marc Lépine went to the escalator that goes to the 3rd floor. He shot and wounded another woman and shot 2 male students as well.
Lépine then walked up an escalator to the 3rd floor where he shot and wounded one
On the 3rd floor he entered a classroom and told 3 students to "get out". He shot and wounded Maryse Leclair. He fired at students in the front row. He shot and killed two more women who tried to escape out the door.
He moved towards a group of women, wounded three and killing a 4th.Maryse Leclair was crying for help. Marc Lépine took out his hunting knife and stabbed her three times, killing her.
He then took off his hat, wrapped his coat around his rifle, said "Oh sh**!" and then shot himself in the head with his rifle.
The attack had lasted 20 minutes.
Approx. 60 bullets remained in the boxes he was carrying with him. He had killed 14 women (13 students and 1 employee) and injured 14 other people, including 4 men.
Why? Because Marc Lépine hated feminists and he blamed feminists for ruining his life. His suicide letters contained a list of nineteen Quebec women whom Lépine wished to kill because he considered them to be feminists.Lépine's father was an abusive woman-hater and later became a deadbeat dad. His parents later separated and his mother had to work constantly to pay for her children. Marc Lépine tried to join the Canadian Army in 1980-81, but was rejected according to his suicide letter because he was "anti-social". According to a police biography released Marc Lépine was intelligent but troubled, and hated feminists, career women and women in traditionally male occupations, such as women in the police force.
Lépine applied to the École Polytechnique in 1986 and in 1989 but lacked two courses required for admission. He completed 1 course in the winter of 1989, 9 months before the massacre. He could have taken the other course needed to get into the program and eventually succeeded in his career goals.
But instead he got frustrated and decided to take his frustration out on women.
THE AFTERMATH
The Montreal Massacre was the largest attack in Canada specifically aimed at women. The day (December 6th) is now commemorated as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
The incident led to stronger gun control laws in Canada and introduced tactical changes in police response to shootings, something which benefited the police response to other shootings. (See Killer Goth in Montreal.)
The Truth about Rozsika Parker
FEMINIST ART HISTORY - British psychotherapist and feminist art historian Rozsika Parker has died... which means it is now an opportunity to bring her work to the younger generation and anyone interested in feminism, art, and women artists. Rozsika Parker was a pioneer... She was a feminist art theorist and activist from the 1970s and was active well into the 1990s, often collaborating with famed feminist / art historian Griselda Pollock.
Take the book "Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology" as an example, which Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock wrote together, one of the most important books of feminist art theory and history that you may ever read.
Parker and Pollock examined how art history as a discipline had misogyny at its core... like how most male art historians focus on male artists and give only token attention to women artists, and how art history as a discipline has a tendency to push women down and "smack down" anything that was remotely feminine.
In order words male art historians were basically b***h-slapping women artists down for being too uppity, but doing in such a way that it looked like they were just ignoring them because "women artists aren't important enough". Which they are, but when all the male art historians say you're not important it becomes a vicious cycle. Basically its a glass ceiling for female artists.
Parker and Pollock's second collaboration, "Framing Feminism: Art and the Women's Movement 1970-1985" was and still is a great source of information about the feminist art movement in Britain (which often got overwhelmed by the American Women's Liberation Movement).
Parker's "The Subversive Stitch: Embroidery and the Making of the Feminine" is also a very good book, informative and relevant. Its not like embroidery changes much in the last couple decades. You might take it for granted that knitting or embroidering or weaving were not previously accepted forms of high art, but read this book and you might change your mind. There is a lot of work and detail that goes into embroidery.
Parker's personal life was a bit of a mystery. She was a bit of a mysterious figure for who was largely unknown in the USA and even in Britain where she was still into feminist activism and working as a psychoanalytic psychotherapist.
Its difficult to say what she was like as a person. In her books you don't really know where Griselda Pollock left off and where Rozsika Parker began. Many of their beliefs evidently coincided.
She liked had a fierce feminism, was compassionate, very focused on her work and wanted to make the world a better place through both activism and writing. It was a very different era when she began writing in the 1970s, back when women were born instead of culturally constructed (a concept which grew in the 1980s).
"Old Mistresses" and "Framing Feminism" have long been out of print. Maybe in the future they can be re-issued.
Or maybe someone sneaky and intelligent could archive her writings online... for all the world to see and learn from.
Take the book "Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology" as an example, which Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock wrote together, one of the most important books of feminist art theory and history that you may ever read.
Parker and Pollock examined how art history as a discipline had misogyny at its core... like how most male art historians focus on male artists and give only token attention to women artists, and how art history as a discipline has a tendency to push women down and "smack down" anything that was remotely feminine.
In order words male art historians were basically b***h-slapping women artists down for being too uppity, but doing in such a way that it looked like they were just ignoring them because "women artists aren't important enough". Which they are, but when all the male art historians say you're not important it becomes a vicious cycle. Basically its a glass ceiling for female artists.
Parker and Pollock's second collaboration, "Framing Feminism: Art and the Women's Movement 1970-1985" was and still is a great source of information about the feminist art movement in Britain (which often got overwhelmed by the American Women's Liberation Movement).
Parker's "The Subversive Stitch: Embroidery and the Making of the Feminine" is also a very good book, informative and relevant. Its not like embroidery changes much in the last couple decades. You might take it for granted that knitting or embroidering or weaving were not previously accepted forms of high art, but read this book and you might change your mind. There is a lot of work and detail that goes into embroidery.
Parker's personal life was a bit of a mystery. She was a bit of a mysterious figure for who was largely unknown in the USA and even in Britain where she was still into feminist activism and working as a psychoanalytic psychotherapist.
Its difficult to say what she was like as a person. In her books you don't really know where Griselda Pollock left off and where Rozsika Parker began. Many of their beliefs evidently coincided.
She liked had a fierce feminism, was compassionate, very focused on her work and wanted to make the world a better place through both activism and writing. It was a very different era when she began writing in the 1970s, back when women were born instead of culturally constructed (a concept which grew in the 1980s).
"Old Mistresses" and "Framing Feminism" have long been out of print. Maybe in the future they can be re-issued.
Or maybe someone sneaky and intelligent could archive her writings online... for all the world to see and learn from.
Feminist Bloggers Wanted
You:
Feminist.
Articulate.
Able to research topics about "truth, justice and the feminist way", or similar topics.
Enjoys writing / ranting for the fun of it.
You don't take s*** from nobody, but you can take editorial advice.
If so, contact suzannemacnevin{atsymbol}gmail.com
:)
Feminist.
Articulate.
Able to research topics about "truth, justice and the feminist way", or similar topics.
Enjoys writing / ranting for the fun of it.
You don't take s*** from nobody, but you can take editorial advice.
If so, contact suzannemacnevin{atsymbol}gmail.com
:)
Suck My Ovaries
FEMINIST - Repeat after me... Suck My Ovaries.
Say it proud, say it strong.
Check out http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22suck+my+ovaries%22
At the top of the list you will you find the following blog: suckmyovaries.blogspot.com. Definitely worth checking out.
Especially the following posts:
Female Fronted Bands
Yeastie Girls
Libertarias/Freedomfighters Fim
:)
Say it proud, say it strong.
Check out http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22suck+my+ovaries%22
At the top of the list you will you find the following blog: suckmyovaries.blogspot.com. Definitely worth checking out.
Especially the following posts:
Female Fronted Bands
Yeastie Girls
Libertarias/Freedomfighters Fim
:)
The Truth about Rape Trials
FEMINISM - Fact: Only 49% of sexual assault trials in Canada end in convictions.
It doesn't take a genius to realize similar statistics likely exist in the USA.
But here is the kicker. Most sexual assaults don't even go to trial. Only 9 to 10% of sexual assaults in Canada are even reported to the police.
According to Statistics Canada there is approx. 26,000 sexual assaults reported to police each year. But because Canadians only report 9% to 10% of sexual assaults that means there is between 260,000 and 286,000 sexual assaults per year.
Lastly only 20% of those include physical injuries.
Thus for 80% of cases sexual assault is very difficult to prove. And for the 20% that does have physical injuries, there is still no guarantee it will go to trial.
What is also known is that you are more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone you know, a friend, co-worker or even a relative, not by a stranger. Sexual assaults by strangers is actually pretty rare. However because women are often assaulted by friends, family, co-workers, etc. this is why so few people report it to the police.
Once it does get reported however the police are (generally speaking) very thorough. They interview the woman multiple times, comparing her story to make absolutely certain she isn't making it up. If there is any doubt the charges end up being dropped.
Thus the percentage of false claims that make it to court is so small its not even a percentage point. It is 99.99% or better truth.
Which means its practically a fact, but the problem is how do you prove it?
And that is where the he-said-she-said system comes into play. Without secondary witnesses and character witnesses, how are we to know who is telling the truth?
He says it was consensual. Or claims they were both drunk. Or whatever excuse he can think of. ie. She seduced him and just wants his money. Seriously, whatever lie that sounds plausible is the one that he will use in court.
She says it was rape. There was nothing consensual about it. She said NO and she meant it. She wasn't playing around. She wasn't seducing him or flirting with him. She was tricked, cornered, fooled, abused, assaulted, and then dismissed like yesterday's garbage.
It would be wonderful if someone could invent a lie detecting machine which is 100% infallible and allowable in a court room. Perfectly accurate. It measures their vitals, their heart rate, their hormone levels and brain activity.
And then the liars would be caught and put behind bars for their crimes. The system would be so much simpler with a lie detecting machine which works perfectly.
See Also
The Vagina on Trial
Stop Rape
Abortion, Rape and the American Way
Gender Violence in Mexico
The 10 Worst Countries for Women
It doesn't take a genius to realize similar statistics likely exist in the USA.
But here is the kicker. Most sexual assaults don't even go to trial. Only 9 to 10% of sexual assaults in Canada are even reported to the police.
According to Statistics Canada there is approx. 26,000 sexual assaults reported to police each year. But because Canadians only report 9% to 10% of sexual assaults that means there is between 260,000 and 286,000 sexual assaults per year.
Lastly only 20% of those include physical injuries.
Thus for 80% of cases sexual assault is very difficult to prove. And for the 20% that does have physical injuries, there is still no guarantee it will go to trial.
What is also known is that you are more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone you know, a friend, co-worker or even a relative, not by a stranger. Sexual assaults by strangers is actually pretty rare. However because women are often assaulted by friends, family, co-workers, etc. this is why so few people report it to the police.
Once it does get reported however the police are (generally speaking) very thorough. They interview the woman multiple times, comparing her story to make absolutely certain she isn't making it up. If there is any doubt the charges end up being dropped.
Thus the percentage of false claims that make it to court is so small its not even a percentage point. It is 99.99% or better truth.
Which means its practically a fact, but the problem is how do you prove it?
And that is where the he-said-she-said system comes into play. Without secondary witnesses and character witnesses, how are we to know who is telling the truth?
He says it was consensual. Or claims they were both drunk. Or whatever excuse he can think of. ie. She seduced him and just wants his money. Seriously, whatever lie that sounds plausible is the one that he will use in court.
She says it was rape. There was nothing consensual about it. She said NO and she meant it. She wasn't playing around. She wasn't seducing him or flirting with him. She was tricked, cornered, fooled, abused, assaulted, and then dismissed like yesterday's garbage.
It would be wonderful if someone could invent a lie detecting machine which is 100% infallible and allowable in a court room. Perfectly accurate. It measures their vitals, their heart rate, their hormone levels and brain activity.
And then the liars would be caught and put behind bars for their crimes. The system would be so much simpler with a lie detecting machine which works perfectly.
See Also
The Vagina on Trial
Stop Rape
Abortion, Rape and the American Way
Gender Violence in Mexico
The 10 Worst Countries for Women
The Truth about Feminomics
FEMINIST - A woman's work is never done.
And likewise trying to calculate the value of woman's work is infinite. Let me explain why...
When a mother teaches their children a skill and that skill is passed on to future generations, even if the skill changes over time, evolves, it ends up being of infinite value to the descendants who follow. ie. The ability to cook your own food, something which every human should know.
But how does women's work get calculated into the wealth (GDP) of a nation? In theory all that food that is grown, harvested and eaten at home has value that is being ignored when calculating the GDP of many countries, even European and Western countries.
Instead GDP is usually measured in dollars changing hands, like BP oil or the Alberta tar sands (and totally ignores the damage to the environment which will cost future generations billions to fix, let alone the damage to the health of people living near these environmental disasters).
GDP also ignores birthing, nursing, diapering, cooking, baking, nurturing and teaching that most mothers do (and if they don't then their nanny does it).
Political economist Marilyn Waring, a former New Zealand cabinet minister and now professor of public policy at the Institute of Public Policy at AUT University in Auckland believes we should be calculating the value of women's work. “The market wouldn’t survive if it wasn’t able to survive on the backbone of unpaid work," she says.
So its not just women's work we are talking about. Its also the value of being a father (teaching, nurturing and so forth) and even chores done by children. ALL UNPAID WORK.
Waring calculates that the largest source of unpaid work in any economy is performed by women.
In 1988, Waring’s book "Counting for Nothing" (known now as "If Women Counted" introduced the idea that the way we calculate wealth is flawed because it ignores the well-being of work done at home.
Lets take for example a person living in northern Canada. If they build, using their own two hands, a huge home made of stone and outfit it with a source of electricity from a local river and a waterwheel, what is the GDP value of the home?
Zero.
Because they didn't sell it.
Its like trying to keep track of barter, another source of "unpaid work". People perform barter on a regular basis without realizing it. Women's work is really just a form of barter. They cook, clean and nurture children in exchange for a roof over their head, food and spending money (we can ignore the love and intimacy factors that should be involved in such a relationship).
In 2005 StatsCan calculated that men perform an average of 2.5 hours of unpaid work per day while women do 4.3 hours. (This includes time spent doing volunteer work for the community.)
(Honestly I also wonder what does blogging count as... I am after all performing a free public service. But the value of informing other people of the worth of various truths is difficult to calculate.)
Feminomics therefore is a very tricky thing to calculate... but I'd argue trying to calculate it in dollars is a moot issue because its not paid in dollars. IT SHOULD BE MEASURED IN HOURS.
Suzy's Feminomics Value of Women's Work (or FV)
FV = Hours per Annum per Capita.
ie. In 2005 Canada the FV was 1569.5 hours / Capita.
But if we went to a country where most women don't have careers, like Afghanistan, the FV might be closer to 3000 hours / Capita.
The idea here is that if we actually want to calculate women's work that we need to be using a different yardstick.
And likewise trying to calculate the value of woman's work is infinite. Let me explain why...
When a mother teaches their children a skill and that skill is passed on to future generations, even if the skill changes over time, evolves, it ends up being of infinite value to the descendants who follow. ie. The ability to cook your own food, something which every human should know.But how does women's work get calculated into the wealth (GDP) of a nation? In theory all that food that is grown, harvested and eaten at home has value that is being ignored when calculating the GDP of many countries, even European and Western countries.
Instead GDP is usually measured in dollars changing hands, like BP oil or the Alberta tar sands (and totally ignores the damage to the environment which will cost future generations billions to fix, let alone the damage to the health of people living near these environmental disasters).
GDP also ignores birthing, nursing, diapering, cooking, baking, nurturing and teaching that most mothers do (and if they don't then their nanny does it).
Political economist Marilyn Waring, a former New Zealand cabinet minister and now professor of public policy at the Institute of Public Policy at AUT University in Auckland believes we should be calculating the value of women's work. “The market wouldn’t survive if it wasn’t able to survive on the backbone of unpaid work," she says.
So its not just women's work we are talking about. Its also the value of being a father (teaching, nurturing and so forth) and even chores done by children. ALL UNPAID WORK.
Waring calculates that the largest source of unpaid work in any economy is performed by women.
In 1988, Waring’s book "Counting for Nothing" (known now as "If Women Counted" introduced the idea that the way we calculate wealth is flawed because it ignores the well-being of work done at home.
Lets take for example a person living in northern Canada. If they build, using their own two hands, a huge home made of stone and outfit it with a source of electricity from a local river and a waterwheel, what is the GDP value of the home?
Zero.
Because they didn't sell it.
Its like trying to keep track of barter, another source of "unpaid work". People perform barter on a regular basis without realizing it. Women's work is really just a form of barter. They cook, clean and nurture children in exchange for a roof over their head, food and spending money (we can ignore the love and intimacy factors that should be involved in such a relationship).
In 2005 StatsCan calculated that men perform an average of 2.5 hours of unpaid work per day while women do 4.3 hours. (This includes time spent doing volunteer work for the community.)
(Honestly I also wonder what does blogging count as... I am after all performing a free public service. But the value of informing other people of the worth of various truths is difficult to calculate.)
Feminomics therefore is a very tricky thing to calculate... but I'd argue trying to calculate it in dollars is a moot issue because its not paid in dollars. IT SHOULD BE MEASURED IN HOURS.
Suzy's Feminomics Value of Women's Work (or FV)
FV = Hours per Annum per Capita.
ie. In 2005 Canada the FV was 1569.5 hours / Capita.
But if we went to a country where most women don't have careers, like Afghanistan, the FV might be closer to 3000 hours / Capita.
The idea here is that if we actually want to calculate women's work that we need to be using a different yardstick.
What are YOUR feminist truths?
Do you have something really profound you'd like to share with the wider feminist community? Here's your chance to say something.
Leave a comment or email me at suzannemacnevin[at]gmail.com (all comments will be kept anonymous by default).
Also, if you have a topic you'd like me to write about, let me know about it.
Cheers!
Suzanne MacNevin
Examples to get you started:
1. Poverty is the main deciding factor in abortion. If anti-abortionists really wanted to stop abortion they'd fight poverty first.
2. Weightlifting doesn't make you look like a man. Steroids do.
3. There is no excuse for laziness. Don't make being female an excuse for why you can't "Just do it!" yourself. This applies to everything.
4. If you start telling yourself you can't do something because you're a woman then you need to go out there and prove to yourself that you CAN do it.
5. Don't do something because its "the feminist thing to do", do it because its the right thing for you to do.
6. Even men ask for advice. There is no shame in it.
7. Womens sports have a long way to go. Be patient, but always strive for more.
8. Unpaid "women's work" is the backbone on which our economy survives. If it wasn't for women teaching their children, child rearing, making meals, etc. our economy would collapse over night. But that doesn't mean every woman is destined to be a mother. Some women just don't have the maternal spirit, or they choose to delay that aspect of their life until later so they can better provide for themselves and their children.
9. Feminomics is the Future, the Past and the Present.
10. When push comes to shove most women choose love first. Your feminist beliefs are not about restrictions. Its about the freedom to choose what YOU want to do.
Leave a comment or email me at suzannemacnevin[at]gmail.com (all comments will be kept anonymous by default).
Also, if you have a topic you'd like me to write about, let me know about it.
Cheers!
Suzanne MacNevin
Examples to get you started:
1. Poverty is the main deciding factor in abortion. If anti-abortionists really wanted to stop abortion they'd fight poverty first.
2. Weightlifting doesn't make you look like a man. Steroids do.
3. There is no excuse for laziness. Don't make being female an excuse for why you can't "Just do it!" yourself. This applies to everything.
4. If you start telling yourself you can't do something because you're a woman then you need to go out there and prove to yourself that you CAN do it.
5. Don't do something because its "the feminist thing to do", do it because its the right thing for you to do.
6. Even men ask for advice. There is no shame in it.
7. Womens sports have a long way to go. Be patient, but always strive for more.
8. Unpaid "women's work" is the backbone on which our economy survives. If it wasn't for women teaching their children, child rearing, making meals, etc. our economy would collapse over night. But that doesn't mean every woman is destined to be a mother. Some women just don't have the maternal spirit, or they choose to delay that aspect of their life until later so they can better provide for themselves and their children.
9. Feminomics is the Future, the Past and the Present.
10. When push comes to shove most women choose love first. Your feminist beliefs are not about restrictions. Its about the freedom to choose what YOU want to do.
Canadian Feminists divided over Prostitution
SEX - Prostitution is legal in Canada, but there are a lot of things which restrict how a sex worker is allowed to ply their trade in Canada. Recently Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court struck down the following sections of the Canadian Criminal Code:
Section 210, which prohibits maintaining, owning or being a member of a “common bawdy-house.” The result is that brothels are no longer illegal in Canada.
Why is this important? Because brothels are safer than walking the streets or answering outcalls. With brothels comes security and bouncers for kicking out the rowdy men who don't follow the rules.
Section 212(1)(j), which affects those living “wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person.”
With this struck down, prostitutes are able to support dependents, including children and partners. It also means that if they run a brothel they can pay to have a bouncer, an accountant, desk clerks, etc.
Section 213(1)(c), best known as the “communicating law,” which prevents street prostitutes from screening clients before putting themselves at risk.
With this gone prostitutes can now screen individuals they choose to have sex with, often because they don't feel comfortable with the person. Examples: Too creepy, scary looking, is a member of the NRA, or even just plain ugly.
The constitutional challenge was made by members of the Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) because they felt these laws were unfair and dangerous to the lives of sex workers, regardless of their intent.
Justice Susan Himel agreed and these laws were struck down because they endangered the health and safety of sex workers.
There are those feminists out there that argue that allowing brothels and screening will lead to an increase in pimping (which is still illegal in Canada) and organized crime / trafficking of women.
In major Canadian cities prostitution is not only common, its easy to find. Just open a NOW magazine in Toronto, flip to the back pages and you'll find advertisements for both male and female sex workers. You can also go to Craigslist or Kijiji. Or you can walk down one of the less reputable streets in the middle of the night.
For feminists however there is a huge ideological gap.
In the right corner we have the anti-sex-trade feminists, who believe prostitution should be completely illegal and that prostitutes should essentially be rounded up, forced to go to university and get decent jobs like the rest of us.
In the left corner we have the pro-choice feminists, who believe prostitution is going to happen regardless of what laws we implement because women sometimes just get desperate and are in a bad situation. They believe sex workers need to be protected, given more options for their personal safety and given choices so they can decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives.
Its actually very similar to the whole "women have the right to a safe abortion" argument. On the right side we have people who oppose abortion entirely. On the left side we have people who believe abortions are going to happen regardless and thus we should try and make it as safe as possible.
This isn't so much about "right and wrong", its about ensuring the safety of women who make those decisions, because they're going to make those decisions anyway regardless of what laws are out there. They're desperate enough to try anything.
Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court struck down as unconstitutional the bawdy house provision, which by preventing sex workers from sharing premises that ensured their common safety, increased their risk of exposure to violence.
The “living off the avails” section, which criminalizes those being supported by a sex worker, was meant to target pimps, it also affects a prostitute's live-in family, including partners, parents and children, as well as security guards or bouncers who might protect her.
The communication law was declared unconstitutional because experts all agree the greatest danger to street sex workers is their inability to safely screen johns before jumping into their cars.
“For me it's not complicated to understand why there's a divide: it's two visions,” says Diane Matte of Montreal's Coalition Against Sexual Exploitation, who has a street-level view of the sex worker industry. “The SPOC women do not hide the fact that they want to open brothels,” says Matte.
That much is certainly true. SPOC wants to open brothels and make prostitution a lot safer through government regulation and private security. The brothels would be owned by the prostitutes themselves, not by pimps.
Matte wants a Nordic model, such as the laws currently in place in Iceland and Sweden, which has decriminalized sex workers while criminalizing their clients. But all that does is cause prostitution to driven further underground, where violence is more likely to happen.
“As a criminologist I can guarantee you that that doesn't work because it doesn't remove the criminal element from prostitution,” says O'Doherty, who teaches at the University of the Fraser Valley. Making demand illegal only serves to drive sex workers underground, she says.
As the world's oldest profession prostitution will never be eradicated until we've eradicated poverty entirely. And even then we will have another problem, women who don't have sex for money but instead just "slut themselves around willy-nilly for kicks". (For reference being slutty isn't a sin per se, but doing so without regard to personal safety, the safety of others, and ignoring the feelings of others is a cause for concern.)
And lets face it, there's way more sluts than there is prostitutes.
The primary difference however is that sluts have the option of screening their sexual partners and can have sex in the privacy of their own homes if they choose to. They can be safe about it.
Which is what sex workers want to. Safety.
Eventually they will hopefully find a different job, go back to school, etc. There is no pension plan when you're a sex worker. Eventually even sex workers have to start thinking about retirement.
Section 210, which prohibits maintaining, owning or being a member of a “common bawdy-house.” The result is that brothels are no longer illegal in Canada.
Why is this important? Because brothels are safer than walking the streets or answering outcalls. With brothels comes security and bouncers for kicking out the rowdy men who don't follow the rules.
Section 212(1)(j), which affects those living “wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person.”
With this struck down, prostitutes are able to support dependents, including children and partners. It also means that if they run a brothel they can pay to have a bouncer, an accountant, desk clerks, etc.
Section 213(1)(c), best known as the “communicating law,” which prevents street prostitutes from screening clients before putting themselves at risk.
With this gone prostitutes can now screen individuals they choose to have sex with, often because they don't feel comfortable with the person. Examples: Too creepy, scary looking, is a member of the NRA, or even just plain ugly.
The constitutional challenge was made by members of the Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) because they felt these laws were unfair and dangerous to the lives of sex workers, regardless of their intent.Justice Susan Himel agreed and these laws were struck down because they endangered the health and safety of sex workers.
There are those feminists out there that argue that allowing brothels and screening will lead to an increase in pimping (which is still illegal in Canada) and organized crime / trafficking of women.
In major Canadian cities prostitution is not only common, its easy to find. Just open a NOW magazine in Toronto, flip to the back pages and you'll find advertisements for both male and female sex workers. You can also go to Craigslist or Kijiji. Or you can walk down one of the less reputable streets in the middle of the night.
For feminists however there is a huge ideological gap.
Its actually very similar to the whole "women have the right to a safe abortion" argument. On the right side we have people who oppose abortion entirely. On the left side we have people who believe abortions are going to happen regardless and thus we should try and make it as safe as possible.
This isn't so much about "right and wrong", its about ensuring the safety of women who make those decisions, because they're going to make those decisions anyway regardless of what laws are out there. They're desperate enough to try anything.
Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court struck down as unconstitutional the bawdy house provision, which by preventing sex workers from sharing premises that ensured their common safety, increased their risk of exposure to violence.The “living off the avails” section, which criminalizes those being supported by a sex worker, was meant to target pimps, it also affects a prostitute's live-in family, including partners, parents and children, as well as security guards or bouncers who might protect her.
The communication law was declared unconstitutional because experts all agree the greatest danger to street sex workers is their inability to safely screen johns before jumping into their cars.
“For me it's not complicated to understand why there's a divide: it's two visions,” says Diane Matte of Montreal's Coalition Against Sexual Exploitation, who has a street-level view of the sex worker industry. “The SPOC women do not hide the fact that they want to open brothels,” says Matte.
That much is certainly true. SPOC wants to open brothels and make prostitution a lot safer through government regulation and private security. The brothels would be owned by the prostitutes themselves, not by pimps.Matte wants a Nordic model, such as the laws currently in place in Iceland and Sweden, which has decriminalized sex workers while criminalizing their clients. But all that does is cause prostitution to driven further underground, where violence is more likely to happen.
“As a criminologist I can guarantee you that that doesn't work because it doesn't remove the criminal element from prostitution,” says O'Doherty, who teaches at the University of the Fraser Valley. Making demand illegal only serves to drive sex workers underground, she says.
As the world's oldest profession prostitution will never be eradicated until we've eradicated poverty entirely. And even then we will have another problem, women who don't have sex for money but instead just "slut themselves around willy-nilly for kicks". (For reference being slutty isn't a sin per se, but doing so without regard to personal safety, the safety of others, and ignoring the feelings of others is a cause for concern.)
And lets face it, there's way more sluts than there is prostitutes.The primary difference however is that sluts have the option of screening their sexual partners and can have sex in the privacy of their own homes if they choose to. They can be safe about it.
Which is what sex workers want to. Safety.
Eventually they will hopefully find a different job, go back to school, etc. There is no pension plan when you're a sex worker. Eventually even sex workers have to start thinking about retirement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)