With child, without...

This article I was reading yesterday on CBC's news site describes how eating (entirely inordinate amounts of) hormone-filled beef whilst pregnant may have an effect on a male fetus' sperm count.

Aside from my initial reaction of "well, good" (I'll leave the population rant for another day), I also got the feeling that this article and others like it have a very anti-female-autonomy agenda despite their apparent neutrality. So, when studies reveal that hormones and other crap in factory farm meat are crazy bad for you in ways you may not even realize, instead of condemning whomever deemed this poison fit to eat, the media spins it as an issue of pregnant women harming their fetuses.

Measures to control pregnant women and their bodies are rampant in Canadian health care policy and practices, and although they are often camouflaged as medical advice or routine prenatal care, there is a danger that women's ability to make personal choices about their health while pregnant may be usurped by the state in the form of criminal sanctions. Right now, the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission has an initiative called "With Child Without Alcohol," and last month the federal health minister introduced a National Healthy Pregnancy Campaign. Even before they become pregnant, women are encouraged to take supplements such as folic acid in order to render their wombs habitable for not-yet-conceived progeny.

This conception (no pun intended) of all fertile women as either pregnant or pre-pregnant (an actual term used by the US government, I shit you not) is really not such a far cry from the Japanese health minister who referred to his nation's women as "birth-giving machines." At this point, because a fetus is not defined by the Criminal Code as a living being with legal rights (and I remember studying and debating the SCC case of Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.). which decided the issue while raising as many questions as it answered) there is no authority for the government to punish pregnant women for their health choices. However, the subtle inroads into personal autonomy that we see now are a worrisome trend, and it is often the case that social pressure and access to information and resources may be as influential, if not more, as the law of the land.

To paraphrase someone clever whose name I can't recall, any amount of highway driving may be hazardous to a fetus' health, but you don't see graphic and disturbing warning labels on steering wheels...

Kamloops loser facing five sexual assault charges

According to a story posted today in Kamloops This Week, a fifth charge has been approved against Steve Byron, the jackass who posted employment ads in the paper and then sexually assaulted the women who responded (um, allegedly). His arraignment hearing's on Friday so we'll see then what he pleads.

It's bad enough that women have to regularly deal with the threat of sexual violence, but it's all the more appalling when a predator targets disadvantaged women who might be looking desperately for a job. According to someone I know who'd spoken with one of the victims, she was a bit skeeved by the fact that the interview address turned out to be a private residence, but needed the work and thought it would be silly of her to just leave.

From what appears to be Byron's profile on social networking site Where Are You Now?, (amazing what Google can do, eh?) this fine gentleman considers himself to be a God-fearing Christian whose favourite book is the Bible. That's reassuring!

Why can't this woman...stay out of my Saturday Globe?

I cherish my weekend coffee and paper routine, so was annoyed (actually, further annoyed, since I'd just weathered Leah McLaren's typical self-congratulatory assfest) to see the cover of the "Books" section today devoted to the even more heinous Camille Paglia.

In an article entitled "Why can't a woman...", everyone's favourite anti-feminist (who counts among her fans the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher) presents a superficially benign discussion of women in power in the context of a series of book reviews. In a scant single page she flogs a number of her pet dead horses, including dismissing mainstream feminists (too domestic) and women's studies courses (male-bashing), confusing military might with political effectiveness, and wishing ever-so-hard that women would just go ahead and become men ("This is the new feministm. The path to power for women lies through male territory".)

Sure, "Books" is just a fluffy weekend supplement, but it makes no sense for what is supposed to be Canada's slightly more progressive national paper to provide a platform for an American reactionary to talk about issues for which she's universally considered ill-informed and unqualified (hint: if everyone from Naomi Wolf to Katha Pollitt thinks you're an asshole, things are looking bad). Paglia already has far more than enough of an audience with Salon, and besides: we've got our own libertarian crackpots...why borrow from the States?

LEAF, Roe, and rural abortions

Aw, man. I would've loved to attend this event last Friday put on by West Coast LEAF (Women's Legal Education and Action Fund). I've attended/volunteered at their annual Persons Day breakfasts but didn't realize there was an International Women's Day event as well.

From what I've read, this Dr. Weddington is a pretty incredible activist. Can you imagine being 26 years old and arguing in the Supreme Court? It would be fascinating to hear her thoughts on abortion rights so many years after Roe v. Wade. [Edited to add: I guess I could've found out easily enough]

Reading about some of the bad legislation coming out of the States (Mississippi, I'm looking at YOU) makes Canada appear infinitely more progressive in this area. There is still work to be done, though.

An interesting article on the topic recently ran in the Sun (and kudos to the paper for this in-depth, well-written article that shows none of the prevalent and irritating tendency in print media to interview fringe lunatics in a misguided attempt to present a "balanced" story), describing how although access to abortion has vastly improved in Vancouver and other urban centres in BC, women living in rural areas still face an uphill battle in receiving timely, effective service. Because there are no abortion clinics in most smaller cities and towns, women must attend at a hospital for this procedure. However, unlike at those designated clinics, a GP referral is required to receive an abortion at a hospital. So, if your family doctor is anti-choice, as I know at least a handful in Kamloops are, it would become pretty difficult to access treatment expediently.

I remember discussions in my health law class about what procedures doctors (particularly in remote areas where a patient's options are more limited) should be required by law to perform, and there is certainly no easy answer to that question. But women's health should not be compromised for geographical reasons.

Zoe Williams is the new Heather Mallick

I adore Heather Mallick's writing. She has a distinctive style that is a pleasure to read, with nearly unending twists and tangents. She faces controversial subjects head-on and isn't afraid of offending her readership or appearing internally inconsistent as she mines the intersection of privilege and conscience. This technique, I believe, serves to improve the quality of discourse because it doesn't rely on pat answers to hard questions. Her sense of humour is rather subtle and satirical which leads inevitably to misunderstandings manifested in the comments section of her "Viewpoints" column on cbc.ca.

I was disappointed when Mallick left the Globe, over a dispute with her editors about an article (reprinted here at rabble.ca) commenting on a piece of poor journalism published in the Guardian. It was in the Guardian's online content the other day that I came across a column by Zoe Williams, whose style of writing reminded me of Mallick's, and who similarly tackles tough topics in op-ed style with wit and occasional righteous ire.

None of which is newsworthy, but if I must lose hours in reading back posts by these columnists, so should you!

Why is Ron Jeremy on The Hour?

Perhaps the show ran out of worthwhile guests like Noam Chomsky and David Suzuki.

Maybe producers worried that the host's tattoos and piercings no longer sufficed to appeal to their "hip," "young" "viewer" demographic (yes, the scare quotes suggest that I believe the hour's target demo is neither hip, young, nor viewing the show).

Whatever its genesis, the segment featuring this notorious porn star was completely ground-unbreaking and envelope-unpushing. George opened with vitriolic letters from enraged neo-cons (isn't it funny how they always misappropriate feminist terminology when attemping to sound like legitimate dissent, when really their arguments boil down to: sexx
=drrty?) and claimed that the majority of mail received was overwhelmingly supportive. The rest of the piece was what you'd expect from a Maxim-reading, hetero fanboy. ZZzz.

I was about to launch into a diatribe against the "adult film" industry, but luckily Ron Jeremy saved me the effort: he says, "porn's not degrading to women...I work for women!" Well! Thank you SO much for clearing that up! I thought the only problem with the pornography industry is that there were no female bosses. Now I can pack up for the night and head to my (non-heart-shaped, non-satin-sheet-covered) bed.

A clip from The Hour's website

Incidentally, the programme opened with The New Pornographers' "Use It." I just learned a couple months ago that the band took its name from what televangelist Jimmy Swaggert dubbed popular music. A little less racy than on first impression.

Montreal prison guard fired for wearing hijab

Although nothing in the rules of the Bordeaux jail prohibited hijabs, a prison guard in Montreal was fired because she refused to cease wearing hers to work.

It's obvious that this raises questions about the legitimacy of such a decision in the face of Quebec's less than commendable reputation for tolerance of religious and other minorities (remember the poll in mid-January that revealed 59% of its population to be admittedly racist?). However, what also stands out is that the onus placed on these female guards to protect themselves sounds alot like the familiar refrain about avoiding the "risks" of rape. Women are told that their behaviours, their clothing, and their very existence put them at risk of attack. So, tie back that hair, hide those gams, and take off the headscarf because when you walk among criminals -- convicted or otherwise -- you're the one that's expected to change.

Story at Canada.com

Status of Women? No...yes...maybe...

On my way to lunch today, I had the dubious pleasure of hearing Bev Oda reading from a prepared statement on CBC Radio regarding "new" funding to the previously gutted Status of Women Canada.

In a voice dripping with insincerity and political motivation, one that seemed not to convince even the Honourable Minister herself, Oda reiterated her announcement from International Women's Day (March 7, 2007) that in recognition of the inequalities still faced by women in Canada, the Conservative government has decided to restore some of the funding it recently yanked from SWC.

Effective April 1, 2007, the government will contribute $15.3 million to the Women's Program branch of SWC. The government touts this as a 42% increase in that program's budget but really it just replaces the equivalent amount that was cut late last year when the Conservatives closed two thirds of SWC's offices.

Although a step in the right direction, this announcement is cold comfort to Canadian women. Furthermore, I highly doubt that any other recent victims of Conservatism (such as the Court Challenges Programme) will be resuscitated. I'll just have to enjoy the fact that at least this announcement probably annoyed the hell out of REAL Women of Canada. Sometimes, that's almost enough.

Status of Women Canada press release

Hello, world!

Lorum ipsum dolor sit amet