Sometimes National Post Op-Eds Annoy. And That's More Than OK

This week Men's Rights Advocates in Edmonton crawled out from their Reddit subforum, and they brought some posters with them. Following Sexual Assault Voices of Edmonton's "Don't Be that Guy" campaign, they decided the world needed a matching "Don't Be That Girl", even if they didn't need to take any new photos for it. So they took the "Guy" pics, and with a little Photoshop magic, added the following statements: 

• "Just because you regret a one-night stand doesn’t mean it wasn’t consensual. Lying about sexual assault = crime"
• "Women who drink are not responsible for their actions, especially when sex is involved. Double standards"
• "Just because she's easy doesn't mean you shouldn't fear false rape accusations. Lying about sexual assault = an unpunished crime."

Reaction was - as the Men's Rights Advocates probably hoped - quick and loud. The story was picked up by the CBC and The National Post. The latter also found a female voice to speak out for the forgotten ones. For those who had been silenced and misrepresented for so long. For... the Men's Rights Advocates. In a column titled "Sometimes, assault accusations are false. A little awareness is OK," Robyn Urback let the feminists know that "... despite the tactless presentation, the message remains fair: Sometimes, women falsely accuse men of rape." And I would agree with that. Sometimes, that happens. Does that happen often enough to warrant an ad campaign equating false rape accusations with rape itself? An event that's possible, though improbable, compared to a crime of depressing prevalence that's likely to go unreported, according to this StatsCan doc, nine out of ten times? Or is this just another example of rape culture, a campaign which does nothing to support the falsely accused, and everything to tell women they're "responsible" - a word picked directly from one of the posters - for their own drunkenness, for their assault, and for having the audacity to just be women at all?

Now I did it. I used that phrase, "rape culture," which marks me as something more sinister than just a simple feminist, tapping ineffectually away on her keyboard. Because, according to Urback, "there’s also another sort of “rape culture” whereby any sort of critical analysis of an accusation is immediately rejected as “victim blaming.” And it looks like I'm a part of it. 

Pictured: one of two rape cultures from Mad Max III: Beyond Thunderdome. 

Which one? Couldn't tell ya.

I guess Urback thinks we're in some kind of Rape Thunderdome - Two rape cultures enter, one leaves! - but that little joke is not enough for this insulting column. I am pissed the fuck off that anyone can find something to salvage in this offensive campaign. I want Robyn Urback's work broken down to its component parts, and each of those then dismantled one by one.

And yet, that's too much for just one person to handle. Fortunately, an awesome friend of mine, Maggie Gordon, can slice Urback's assertion that "Statistics show that false accusations of sexual assaults occur about as frequently as false accusations of other crimes — somewhere between two and four per cent" to shreds in her excellent blog post, "Conversations about False Rape Allegations are Generally Full of Bullshit." And anyone with a basic grasp of figures should find something shady when Urback says that there are "countless stories of innocent lives being derailed by illegitimate accusations" and then mentions exactly two, neither of which happened in Edmonton, the target of this campaign.

I'll just take a look at Urback's argument that "the new posters around Edmonton inadvertently bring attention to their [people falsely accused of rape's] plight." Because they don't. They just don't. Urback herself does a better job of this. You won't see any victims of false accusations, or figures on imprisonment, in these posters. Just photos of anonymous women, called out for ruining men's lives. At least Urback found two anecdotes for her column. The idea that this isn't about men at all is obvious from the text as well, particularly in the third poster I mentioned. It starts off seemingly directed at at a male reader (Just because she's easy) before returning to tell the now female reader not to "be that girl." The second poster also does a poor job of sharing any sort of message about wrongfully convicted men - whining about double standards doesn't do much, except make you seem petulant. So, Robyn Urback, a little awareness is probably OK, but these posters don't even contain that. Perhaps you could try a little bit of self-awareness, and admit you're just searching for pageviews. 

And I'll do the same, and admit I regret the handful I'll send you through this post.

Haywire and a Real Female Action Star

I'm happy to hear that Haywire, Steven Soderbergh's coming attraction, will star Gina Carano, a retired mixed martial arts fighter. Supposedly. I can't verify that she was a fighter, since I'm not a big MMA fan - every time I see it in bars I hope that it's really energetic gay porn and then I'm disappointed when it's not. But I like the idea of having a female action star whose ass-kicking credentials are legit. I'm a lady who loves action movies, but that is a love nurtured despite the fact that most of their women are either damsels in distress or practitioners of what TV Tropes calls "waif fu." That is, the trope of having painfully thin starlet using her perfectly toned leg to kick a guy in the face, all while wearing heels some strippers would find impractically high. Gina Carano is clearly still a conventionally attractive, thin, white woman, but at least she's one with muscles and a winning bout record. Plus, although she takes down Michael Fassbender in a formal dress, at least it seems that she's kicked off the heels to do so. I'll buy a ticket to the movie, two if Soderbergh can guarantee that it's better than The Girlfriend Experience.

Bill Simmons: In which B.S. is literal

I liked Bill Simmons, but I shouldn't have. There were warning signs. The love for the forces of Evil embodied by all Boston sports teams. The quality he has, native to that same city, of sounding like he's SHOUTING even when he's not. What is it? An intonation? A cadence? Is every Bostonian dictating a telegram at all times? "YES. LARRY BIRD. THE. LEGEND." But, most telling of all, he was buddies with Adam Carolla, King of the Douchenozzles.

But I couldn't resist his eagerness, and so I would listen to his podcast regularly. Even when he was talking about some random point guard, or whatever, he made me care because he seemed to know every statistic, every play, from memory. He was an earnest beacon in the gloomy age of Deadspin. But then he started Grantland- a hot stew of 6 parts sports, 3 sports pop culture and 1 part Klosterman- and my love died.

I called the time of death at 9:13pm last night, after finishing "Hackery in the First Degree," Simmons's rant about The Killing's season finale. I'll admit that I haven't seen a minute of any of the Killing's first season, much less the finale, so I won't speak to his issues with the show. But I will talk about his issues with women. Or, more pointedly, his apparent belief that there is an implicit, but binding, contract that requires all female leads on TV to reach basic standards of hot-itude. "Our heroine" he writes "was a redheaded detective named Sarah Linden, a poorly written character who didn't wear makeup, kept her hair in a sexless ponytail, and wore the heaviest sweaters anyone has ever worn on television."

You could, at least, blame CSI for that statement, since that show and its many clones demonstrate- nightly- that a woman's greatest investigative strategy is to bend over and thrust her cleavage in the general direction of a cadaver. Also, that foot chases are best conducted in stiletto heels, whether they're over New York City pavement or Florida swamp. But CSI can't be blamed for this:

I think they were trying to humanize Linden, which was obviously hard because you can't humanize a "strong" female character when she's dressing like a lumberjack.

I'm still trying to parse that statement. Maybe Bill Simmons meant to say that The Killing did such a poor job of characterizing Sarah Linden that her wardrobe had to do all the work. And he just worded it so that what it sounds like he's saying is "Practically-dressed women can't be compelling characters." Or maybe that is what he meant to say, and Carolla's rampant asshattery is contagious. I would love to think the former. Come on, Simmons was there for the '90s, so he's seen Fargo, and there's no way Marge Gunderson in her sensible parka is anything but human and wonderful. But I can't. He just seems so aggrieved in the rest of the article, entitled to a resolution in the first season, or at least a spoiler when that didn't happen, that I feel he sees himself entitled to a hot actress too. Even if it defies all sense of reality to have a busy homicide detective put on a full face before going out. All The Killing owed him was a well-written season, something it evidently failed to do, but it never really needed to succeed at finding Bill Simmons a sexy actress.

Feminine Hygiene: Anna Faris, A New Yorker Article, and Some Feminist Ire

This photo of Anna Faris is either from one of the Scary Movies or a romantic comedy, but the scariest thing is that it works equally well for both.

I like Anna Faris-somehow I survived an entire Scary Movie and concluded that she was the best part of it -but her recent New Yorker profile ("Funny Like a Guy: Anna Faris and Hollywood's Image Problem") has me confused about whether I want her to succeed or not. Sisterhood is powerful, but bitterness lasts forever. Especially the bitterness of wishing, for once, that having "guys want to nail her" would not matter if a woman wants to do comedy.

A "leading agent" tells that to the writer on page 54, and the entire article is full of sad, sad quotes like that one. It should be news to none of you that women- even attractive, white, straight, thin blonde women with breast implants like Faris- do not rule Hollywood. But in this article, that situation is presented so starkly that it left me wanting a drink, matches for my DVD collection, and a good book to read before the cops came to arrest me for arson.

Also notable: Keenan Ivory Wayans's belief that what holds women back from being funny is their innate vanity, because "If Will Ferrell is a girl, and she's got a belly and a hairy back, she's not running down the street naked." Actually, Keenan, if I may pipe up... I'm no Hollywood insider, but I don't think that's what's stopping hairy, fat women from running down the street to the box office bank. Rather it's the legion of American assholes who would surely rise uponce she did, to complain about how she had the audacity to kill their boners.

Which brings me to my least-favourite part of the article, a part I have termed "The Magical Slut Number." For most of the profile, Faris is shown wrapping up What's Your Number?, a romantic comedy and (the article hints) hopefully her big, international break-out role. In the film, a woman reads an article in Marie Claire that says anyone who's slept with more than some arbitrary number of guys will never get married. Unfortunately, she's at that limit. Thus, the plot: tracking down randoms in order to find Mr. Right, ignoring that he's actually right down the hall. God knows, like all women, I conduct every facet of my life in accordance with a magazine with lower circulation than Cosmo.

But what would that arbitrary number be? According to New Regency's Hutch Parker "We thought, would twenty guys be too many for the audience to relate to her?... But if you take that number down- and we though about fifteen, or even twelve- it makes the film less bold." The Magic Slut Number! Too low, and you're not wild enough! Too high, and you scare people. Now, some might say that 20 is not that high of a number for a woman in her thirties. After all, femininity embraced Sex and the City, where even uptight Charlotte probably got her ticket punched more than 20 times in five seasons, much less one lifetime. And New Regency would probably say back to you that you're the kind of dirty whore they don't want in the movie theatre anyway.

At least there was one benefit to reading this article. If some guy ever says to me that the whole "Stud/Slut" double standard does not exist, and is only something angry women bring up while drunk at parties (as I do believe Chuck Klosterman stated, in some form, in Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs), I have ammunition. "Twenty," I will yell, "TWENTY." And then I will mutely point to Anna Faris's face on a bus stop poster.

Music, Movies and Zombies

I've been obsessed with this song, Mes Bottes De Sept Lieues by Le Husky for the past week, so I'm linking to it here as a soundtrack for the following links. Have fun and learn something.

1. Ugh, Canada: The saplings around the site of the G20 conference might be torn up. Why? Because "The trees could be ripped out of the ground by demonstrators 'and then you’ve got a huge bar,' said Constable Wendy Drummond, a spokeswoman for the Integrated Security Unit." Yes, a scrawny, vegan anti-globalization protestor will tear one up from the ground and start flinging it around like a bo staff, roots and all. Because such protesters fucking hate tress. And have the strength of the Hulk.

2. Remember how, a week ago, I wrote about The Small Back Room and its wacky alky scene? Well, it seems that The Onion's AV Club is more positively inclined. You can watch the whole thing there and judge for yourself.

3. Should we kill the label of America's Sweetheart? Alyssa Rosenberg thinks so. I'm not totally convinced, except by her argument that Ms Congeniality 2 sucks. Seems like this is almost a case of hating the player and not the game to me.

4. From Tiger Beatdown: Is splicing horror elements into classic literature remixing or just a ripoff? And what are the gender politics of all this? I think Garland Grey comes on a little strong, but at first I thought at least the fact that all the works getting injected with zombies, sea monsters, vampires and the like are written by women was a point worth investigating. Then I found this: Android Karenina. Well then.

Post-Game Show

So, the Tim Tebow ad aired and in a fairly toned down manner. Basically, it's just his mom saying that he's her miracle baby, but although he's all grown up now she still worries about his health. Then there's a note that you can check out the full Tebow story online, along with the name of the organization and the slogan "Celebrate family. Celebrate life." You can YouTube it if you want.

I can't decide if I'm glad the ad is so toned down as to be non-confrontational, or if it's a little underhanded and sneaky. In either case, it certainly wasn't as off-putting as this ad.

What's up with the growly serial killer voice? Why is it acting as if, say, carrying around someone's lip balm is the most degrading thing ever? Christ, it's a 2 inch-long tube, just stuff it in a pocket somewhere and try and develop a sense of confidence that's not so freaking fragile.

Still, I think the pro-choice credentials of Scott Fujita were responsible for the Saints victory somehow. Well, along with the hard work of Drew Brees and that interception by Tracy Porter.

The Super Bowl, Brought To You By "Life"

Who's Tim Tebow? He's more than a quaterback with a charmingly alliterative name. He's not just a Gators player who's been vocal about his decision to wait until marriage. He's the beefy star of a television commercial, and it isn't for Nike shows or Campbell's Chunky soup. Instead, he's stumping against choice, er, sorry, making a commercial to his commitment to "life."

As a feminist with a mild interest in football, I've been more than a little intrigued by the whole controversy. The ad hasn't been released yet, but it's apparently going to be about Tim Tebow and his mother. While doing missionary work in the Phillippines and expecting Tim, Pam contracted dysentery and then developed a placental abruption as a result of the treatment, so she was advised to terminate the pregnancy. She didn't and you can see the happy ending right here.


My issues with the ad are many. Going through a pregnancy in spite of a placental abruption can be dangerous and your chances of ending up with a healthy baby, much less a Heisman-winner, aren't guaranteed. Also, abortion is illegal in the Phillippines, so Pam was getting an option the rest of the country still lacks, where women have the choice about life made for them and sometimes die as a result.

I also have some concerns that go above the content of the commercial. Although I loathe Focus on the Family, if CBS doesn't have a policy in place banning issue ads during the Super Bowl and FOF wants to pony up a cool 3 mil, then run their ad. Sure, I would take their commitment to "life" more seriously if they used that hunk of cash to actually improve the lives of children post-birth, but whatever.

However, that only applies if CBS is just as willing to broadcast ads from the other side of political spectrum, particularly pro-choice spots. And if their reaction to something as innocous as a gay dating site is any indication, they wouldn't be even if Planned Parenthood magically raised 3 million to blow on 30 seconds of air time.

Furthermore, CBS was apparently involved in the development of the ad. I really think that transgresses an acceptable relationship between a network and an advertiser, and only adds to what an already unbalanced fight. Now FOF not only had 3 million bucks to wave around, but they have all the benefits of CBS' resources and experience as well.

I don't think this necessarily points to some shifty conservative agenda on the part of CBS though. Who knows, that could exist, but it's also better business sense on their part to support the anti-abortion side. I haven't sifted through the stats, but I have a feeling that their side would be more likely to organize boycotts of the game and other advertisers if there was such a PP spot, whereas the other side wouldn't. And even if they did, that group would largely be composed of women, generally not the target audience of any of those ads.

Somehow, though, the controversy and all the complaints have only made the issue worse. I really think this ad could have disappeared from public consciousness if I didn't come with so much hype. But instead of CBS being in the shit, it's NOW. There are columns like this one accusing that organization and feminists in general as trying to suppress any kind of disagreement, as if we really present such a unified front. Not only are we trying to mete out our groupthink to the masses, but we're judging Pam Tebow on her choice. Why, isn't that ironic (in the Alanis Morrisette definition of the term)? such people huff. Well, no, it isn't. I'm not judging Pam Tebow's choice when it comes to her pregnancy with Tim, but I am questioning her choice to try and limit those of other women. And I'm questioning CBS' choice to air that ad and not the one for Man Crunch.

And I am questioning whether to watch the stupid game at all, but since I'm Canadian, all the ads will be replaced when it's simulcast anyway. So I'll be watching a spot for Bob's Discount Carpet Warehouse somewhere out in Scarborough instead of this insanity.

20 Years After December 6

Hello, friends. Sorry about the absence. Between the mom's visit and an office Christmas party, I was either acting too much like a teen, or drunk like a teen, to do too much blogging. Even the book covers thing didn't get done. I've had a lot of things on my mind lately, from the banal (Christmas presents) to the tragic (the 20th anniversary of the Polytechnique massacre.) A great prof posted this video:

Reframing the Montréal Massacre from Maureen Bradley on Vimeo.

I had started watching it earlier in the day, after reading this Babylon, PQ editorial. I was intrigued by the photo Jamie O'Meara described and the controversy behind it. I wanted to see it for myself, so I could decide whether it was moving or just grotesque. Oddly enough, this video critiquing its placement on the front page the morning after the massacre also appears to be the only place you can see the photo online.

I started watching it, and while I agreed with what she was saying about Barbara Frum's line of questioning, I couldn't agree with her on the McInnis photo. Partly, it's because I'm generally disposed to think that a society should be assaulted with graphic depictions of the violence it's played a part in.

And it's also because, on a human level, it's such a revealing photograph. I doubt taking down the holiday decorations would have helped the police in their investigation. Instead, they probably just couldn't stand the cruel contrast between the banner and the bodies they were dealing with. That's the emotional level, there's also the social one. If this had been a photo of domestic violence instead, they probably would have left them for the cleanup crew to deal with. That they wanted to change the space show just how much this was a public massacre and mourning, from the location in a school to the vigils, and how its interpretation would be negotiated in that area.

So I was annoyed that she kept on going back to the photo, cropping out the newspaper and even the rest of the photo even as she decries its graphic and pointless nature. She's trading on the same visceral, gut reaction that she accuses the paper of exploiting and it's feels, well disingenuous. It also removes the context that most of the people would have been receiving this image as part of a news story. Still, it's an interesting video that reminds us, if a little flatly, how media frames stories and manages our reactions.

Never Forget: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz.

Links To Entertain and Educate

Originally, I was going to write a long post today about street harassment, male privilege and more. Yes, I had yet another creepy run-in with some guy on the street last night. But after sleeping off my spleen, I just didn't want to. Maybe next week, when my bile is back at fighting levels, I'll get around to it. Until then, enjoy photographic evidence of my Indian adventures (matar paneer - paneer made by me, bitches! - saag and rice) and a few links.

I saw Whip It about two weeks ago, and thought it was a fun but predictable movie about doing what you love. Especially if it involves kicking ass on a roller derby track. But according to some dude in Psychology Today, it's really about being a big, old, clichéd lesbian. Fortunately, there's an awesome, line-by-line critique of why that analysis is a load of privileged crap.

I have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins. Sure, he can be a little condescending here and there, but the man knows what he's talking about. He's got a new book out that's on my to-read list and an interview in Salon. Proof you can't take the professor out of the pundit: he keeps on correcting the interviewer's terminology.

For all you Montrealers out there: How zoning laws and police crackdowns might be bleeding all the fun out of Mile End. I'm somewhat entertained that there's a "Morality, Alcohol and Drug" squad. It's like they came up with an Anti-Fun Taskforce.

Since it's the season of spooky, here's James Hynes' list of the best Halloween stories. The post itself is funny and there's some interesting-looking stuff on it. I'll cop to only having read two of the things on the list, but that just means I have my reading sewn up until October.