By |

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U

Today I’m working on my final research project for one of my classes, Gendered Communication. As part of this project, I held a focus group where I screened this video and hosted a discussion.

Below is the transcription. I’m so amazed by my friends and their opinions.

To begin the focus group, I asked them to draw a politician.

LC: How many of you drew a woman?
BS: I drew someone gender neutral.
LC: What characteristics did you all come up with?
ML: I wrote smart, socially conscious, open-minded, assertive, advocate for visible minorities, adaptable, possesses power in or with media
AM: Smart, manipulative, eager to be known, dreamer, powerful
BC: Well-spoken, persuasive, opinionated, passionate
DM: Good public speaking skills, so has a good voice that people want to listen to, relatable, has a family, can look at them and see yourself, convincing, personable, knowledgeable on current events and such, open-minded, good experience, well-rounded
BS: Leader, ambitious, public speaker, goal-oriented, organized, unbiased, patriotic, caring, compassionate, selfless, and passionate
KDL: I didn’t write anything nice! Leader, business and money over family and community support, intelligent, deceitful, making promises they have no intention of keeping, smug, untrustworthy, remorseless
PD: Opinionated, honest, strong-willed, respectful, confident, open, optimist
KG: Charismatic, optimistic, enthusiastic, powerful, educated, good at delivering a message
LC: Do you think that we believe that women possess these characteristics? Why or why not?
KDL: This is what I think of when I think of Stephen Harper, not a real politician.
LC: Okay, so what about women who are running for office? Do we think they possess these characteristics?
DM: Yeah, they have more of the characteristics that we named.
ML: I think they’re the same, except for anything related to power. I would generalize and say they have a bit less. But anything social, like social consciousness, I would say it’s about the same.
KDL: I feel like women have more of a sober second thought, and that in the heat of the moment, decisions may be made differently.
LC: What do you mean? Can you expand on that?
KDL: Can I think about that?
AS: Why do you think that they have less of the bad parts and more of the good parts?
DM: I’m not saying they’re perfect in any way, they just have the sober second thought for sure. I think that it seems like men are a little more power hungry whereas women are a little more conscious of the people around them.
ML: I think that’s maybe been imposed on us as a society, I don’t know if that’s how we are necessarily. I think if you look at different societies, and I’m only saying this is something that’s been imposed on us. I think are portrayed as more nurturing, more thoughtful, but I don’t think that’s the case.
BS: But, I mean we’re biologically programmed to be more nurturing, but I think it’s a generalization –
ML: Towards our children
BS: I think in general we’re more sensitive, but that’s not to say that there aren’t women who are less sensitive than certain men are. Saying which gender encompasses these words, we should say which person. It’s not men or women, it’s people. It makes a good debate – is it that we’re meant to think women are more maternal or if they actually are. At the same time, since there’s less women politicians, you have to think they must have fought pretty damn hard to get where they are if they don’t just have the advantage of being a male.
LC: How did they have to fight? What would they have to do to earn a position:
BS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think a lot of passing of power and stuff happens internally inside a cabinet. So until you have a public voting for you, you do have to play a man’s game because you are a minority. Women express that it’s harder for them to gain respect in the workplace. For instance, my mom is pretty high up in her company, and it was hard for her to get there. And still, she gets paid less than men in a lower position. So when women have to work harder in any business scenario, in a political scenario I can imagine it’s worse.
PD: It’s almost like you’re doing five times the work and getting five times less of the recognition.
AS: I’m wondering if women as politicians are appreciated and became politicians because they were different than most women, so they’re more sensitive and everything, so they became politicians because they are more like men, or because they are appreciated as a women for being more sensitive.
LC: Do women have to behave more like a man to achieve a political position?
AS: That’s what I’m wondering. Or if they have more male characteristics, so they became politicians and are more appreciated and successful.
Watched Video
LC: What did you learn about Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Like what she wanted to do as President if she were elected?
BS: Health care was her primary concern.
LC: Did you learn anything else from the footage or the commentary?
KDL: From that video? No.
LC: Do you think you would have learned more about Barack Obama if they were talking about his platform?
DM: Yeah, I think they would have talked about more things and not about his appearance.
KDL: Definitely not the appearance.
ML: More personal characteristics. This was an entire attack on her integrity, it had nothing to do with what she’s striving for.
LC: Would it change your vote? Would the coverage have changed your vote?
PD: Us specifically? Maybe not. Because you see our reaction to this, we know what’s going on. We know the media is portraying her in this specific way. So us here in this room, no, because we know what’s going on. But the general public? Definitely more likely.
BC: From that video you don’t know anything about her campaign. So even us in this room, if they’re not talking about her campaign, you have no reason to vote for her anyway. You’d still probably vote for Barack Obama if you know what he’s fighting for.
KDL: Yeah, cause just cause she’s a woman doesn’t mean I’d vote for her. I mean yes, I would like more women in any political situation but I wouldn’t vote for her because she’s a woman. Like blindly, without knowing what her campaign is about. If I’m already really comfortable for someone else’s campaign…
BS: It sounded like a bunch of boys in the locker room saying like, go beat up the fag. You meet so many guys who were homophobic in high school because of the social pressure and it just stems from such a big, scary populous because that’s what it was: big bullies trying to put pressure on men from keeping a woman from power because it’s deemed embarrassing, as if there’s no way they can manage their periods and rule the country.
KDL: And honestly, that was enough to turn me off from being in politics. So why aren’t there more women? Well that’s a really good reason. I don’t think that’s something I could have the power to go and fight every single day, those comments like that? That would wear me down, the burn out rate must be like, crazy.
LC: Why do you think female politicians are treated this way?
BS: I don’t want to say men are threatened, but that’s the first thing that comes to mind.
KDL: Because if they weren’t threatened, they would be coming up with a better argument as to why women – there’s no real argument.
BS: These are men who I’m sure pay women a lot of money at strip clubs on weekends and yet just can’t handle the fact that her tank top slips this low. Like I’m sorry, but that’s just…
BC: Like Michelle was saying, we’re taught to think of women as more nurturing and stuff, and it’s been seen as a weak thing. So all those power terms, no one would put them with women because we’re nurturing and sensitive and stuff, and that’s seen of as a bad thing in politics.
LC: What are the risks then in how women are represented? How does this affect society when female politicians are talked about like this?
ML: It just becomes a norm. Well, it already is and remains a norm.
KDL: And it encourages that kind of attitude from your leaders.
ML: It’s not even about encouraging, it’s about having people think that’s the way it is and not try to find an answer about why it’s like this. When you ask somebody why is it so unfair? They say, because it is. It’s never, well let’s look into this. It’s always like, well that’s the way the cookie crumbles and let’s stop talking about it immediately. And it just becomes a campaign of silence, and keep it like it is because it’s been working out okay. And that’s a risk.
BC: And Katie just said it discourages women from doing anything and from politics.
KDL: What I really hated in the video was that one of the guys brought up, well if women are 52% of the voters, then why are there not… like you guys need to vote for yourselves. Like you were saying earlier, you don’t have everyone voting for you from square one, you have to get in a position where you can be voted for. All the women in Canada can agree that from now on we’re only going to vote for women in politics, but unless the women are able to get to that situation, and get to that position-
BS: She wasn’t even in the running for President yet – she was just running to get a spot to run to get that. And what did they have to choose between? I mean, a half-Black male or a woman. What was the lesser of two waspy ideals?
DM: And she’s also got the ghosts of her past, like they mentioned in the video. She has to fight also the fact of what her husband did beforehand. Like that’s another added… it had nothing to do with her, really, it was her husband, you know? And that came into play. How did that have anything to do with politics whatsoever? And her platform personally? That’s frustrating, that was even brought up.
LC: Do you think that this kind of coverage or the reactions you guys just explained, contribute to any social issues and if so what do you think those are? Do you think the way we view women who try to get into positions of power, does that contribute to violence against women, the double-day?
DM: It adds to the continuation of how we perceive women and how women should be treated, and that we should be okay with that. It’s not going to change how it is, and I think that especially with how women are being treated in politics, that’s higher up. That’s like what people look up to, that’s what people are watching every day, that’s what people live their life by. So they’re being extremely influenced by comments and everything that’s portrayed in the media. Not just people who have been around this their whole lives, but people who are in school and studying this and watching this, that is still very influential to younger minds as well as the general population. It’s getting engraved from the get-go.
BS: It might be a pretty loaded statement to say that it contributes to violence against women, it’s hard for us to back that up without any substantial research, but I mean just from sitting here and watching that, and being a Hillary Clinton fan, you sit and watch that and I have just this tiny little waver in me where you consider the comments for a second. For a minute when they showed a flash of her talking, like I’ve always felt this power radiating out of her, but looking at her that first flash she looked vulnerable, and I’ve never felt that way about her before. I’ve just watched her speeches, I’ve never listened to commentary about her before. And like wow, if they can make one women who’ve fought so hard, she’s so incredible, than is there any social outcomes? I think it’s just social perception. It obviously encourages men to see a woman in power that way, it encourages women who are ambitious to be fearful of their ambition, it encourages young minds to think that women can’t do the things that the absolutely can do. Directly speaking, I don’t know if there’s physical actions in society, but I think it’s the mental and emotional sway.
LC: Do you think men receive these messages differently than women do?
KDL: I think it depends on the person. I wouldn’t say all women receive these messages the same way. You can have men watching it who are completely disgusted and feel hurt and sad when they see this, and then you can have men who go along with it, you know? I’d be more curious to see if a family’s watching it after dinner and the news comes on, what are the parents going to say? The commercials come on right after it, are you going to turn to your children? Are the dad and the brother going to start picking on the mom and the sister and bring them down? Or is the dad going to say ‘alright guys, that’s not right and that’s not okay.’ I think it’s more important… if we have change starting within the home. In a violent movie, you see parents going ‘okay kids, this isn’t real. It’s a movie, we don’t really do this.’
LC: What do you think are some of the steps we need to take to change the way women are represented in politics or the way that we view positions of power?
DM: I think just not listening to the media. Like basing your own opinions on your own… I don’t know, just not being susceptible.
ML: But what other hosts do we have besides the media?
DM: It’s true! But just the facts, like that’s their own personal opinion. Especially that one guy, I keep going back to that, but he kept talking about her appearance and like, that’s not what this is about. As a host, like your opinion seems to be important. And you watch the news and people subconsciously base their opinions on what news hosts deliver.
BS: The stuff on TV boggles my mind.
DM: They’re there to deliver the news and I don’t know if personal opinion should have a place there as much as it does. That’s a big thing to say, but perfect world news would deliver facts, not opinions.
KDL: I don’t think it’s realistic to say we can avoid the media. You can say that things are because of the media, but you don’t really know how much of the media affects you. But you don’t know. You could say we could avoid media, but I think if you should just look into it a little bit more. If you’re interested, don’t just look at one news clip, if you’re going to build a strong opinion, google it.
DM: Yeah, because you don’t actually know how much is filtered out. Don’t buy the first thing you hear, read into it.
AS: I think the media plays a role in continuing all the things we see, because the journalists, even if they’re women, to keep their job, they play along. I wish there was someone in front of the politicians asking the hard questions or have somebody on the other side saying it’s not okay, but represent the two parts.
BS: I think that’s possible, but I think the fact that these things are not only allowed on TV, but also seen as normally, they’re a generational issue. I can’t wait for future generations to take the place of those old men who think it’s okay to say stuff like that. Just how your grandfather may think it’s okay to say the word nigger, for instance. They’re passing away and newer generations like us are coming up who are more educated and socially aware of equality, are replacing them. So things like gay marriage or women politicians, we’re waiting. We know it’s going to happen, we’re just waiting and we need more modern mindsets in the future. It’s starting the domino effect of teaching young boys and girls in school… let’s say they had Obama and Hillary up in a school as heroes, equal heroes, planting those seeds leads to people like that not being cultivated and not being the voice of our media. I think, you know, instead of saying ‘let’s change the news right away,’ we have to change where it starts and then we’ll get there.
DM: I think that’s true, but I wish it would go faster than that, because at the same time our generation is being raised by previous generations. It’s a process, but a slow one.
BS: If he said nigger on his broadcast, would that be okay? No. Would it have been twenty years ago? Yes, it would have. Within those generations, while my father was raised with his father saying it all the time, did he raise me to say it? No, he taught me not to. It’s a slow process, it’ll happen.
BC: But the thing is in the media, I know this is the states and not Canada, but how many of those news anchors were women and how many of those news anchors were not white? None of them. And you have to be pretty to be on TV. You can’t be in journalism and expect to be on TV if you have anything physically wrong with you, if you’re not willing to go to work everyday looking great. You’re not going to be put on the air. So while you’re watching at home, this is the news but this isn’t okay, but you’re also always listening to a white male. And you have to be attractive to be on TV.
ML: That’s another part of how women are treated in the media. They’re always sexualized, no matter what your platform is. I mean you’re either the very feminine yet powerful woman and she’s portrayed as a dominatrix or somebody who’s sexy and promiscuous, but if she’s not then I’m sorry, but she’s portrayed as a lesbian, butch, something bad. That’s nothing new, that’s been going on forever, and I don’t see it changing radically in our generation at all because even now –
AS: I think we could see a change if on TV when we see those comments, if there was someone who would say something to them like right after who said it’s not okay, at least people who are not aware would see that there are different opinions.
BS: But at the same time when you think about it, even if that woman had to laugh off the sexualized comments towards her, maybe those younger men had to make those kind of comments about Hillary Clinton to keep their job.
KDL: Speaking of appearance, what really bothered me was when that woman said “she looked like 90, 92 years old,” because you know what? A lot of those men are pretty hideous and we don’t say anything about them. Look at the old guys that were talking, they were not good looking men. Point is, if you’ve got a woman who’s of the same age, and because we’re women and we look old, what? That makes her not a good politician, not a good leader, not a good person?
ML: Going back to the fact that men only see women as powerful when they can produce babies. And when they’re old, and if they’re gay, and if they can’t make a baby with a man then they’re not as useful to society. Whereas a man can make babies anytime they want, they can be 75, and it all goes backwards. A woman grows to be 75 and becomes useless, while the man just becomes more powerful. And that’s portrayed not only in media but in pretty much every aspect of our lives. You look at a woman when a woman reaches menopause, and I mean this is part of our culture, a lot of women cut their hair short, and that’s getting rid of part of their femininity and that makes them useless. When a woman is seen as 90, she’s seen in a different way. That’s just part of our culture and the way we’re raised.
LC: It’s interesting because, going back to what you said, if they had said the word nigger on TV that wouldn’t be okay. But because Obama was half-black and middle name is Hussein and thought to be a terrorist, they could call him that because that is this generation’s racism towards the Middle East.
BS: Didn’t they call her a bitch?
LC: Yeah, and a hoe.
BS: That would never fly in journalism.

By |

Today couldn’t get any better.

I was confirmed as a Global Edge intern for Hope magazine in Rwanda this summer.

I’ve ordered my tickets for numerous films at this year’s Hot Docs festival.

And I just found out that they’ve turned my absolute favourite book, “Half the Sky,” into a documentary series.

By |

Why has feminism been pushed underground?

DIY feminism and independent feminism is fantastic – it is easily accessible and encourages expression in ways that are not promoted in the mainstream media.

However, we need to assess mainstream media and research the barriers placed on feminist media in regards to its relationship with mainstream publications, and the potential ways feminist media and thought can become mainstream.

While I understand that part of the allure and organization of feminist media is to be grassroots and easily accessible, I have found that the audience for this media is largely made up of those who would seek this information on their own; that is, it has a specific audience that actively seeks out their publications, but does not reach a larger audience beyond that. Feminist media has a vital role in critiquing mainstream content and is a crucial player in social movements for equality.

In order to change public opinion, feminist media must reach a larger market and become a valid competitor with the media that does access the majority. We must change peoples’ minds instead of preaching to the choir.

The media is only one way to change peoples’ minds, but it’s a start.

By |

Today I accepted my offer at Ottawa U.  It feels weird to officially be a grad student; offer pending so long as I finish my undergrad and don’t prematurely take off running.

Only four months ago, I was sitting in my childhood bedroom writing a reflection on where I have been and where I am going. I was struggling, and continue to struggle with forming some kind of path in a world full of opportunities (a challenge especially hard for a commitmentphobe like myself).

The job market sucks at the moment, so I figure it would be best to stay in school.

But I decided to stay in Ottawa for a different reason.

Four years ago, a month after I turned 17, my mum and dad drove to Carleton to move me into residence for my first year of university.

I was sitting in the front seat beside my dad, while my mum slept in the backseat surrounded by all of my stuff. I remember looking out and watching the trees and farmland quickly pass me.  When I was a kid, I often yelled at my parents in both times of anger and times of excitement that as soon as I could, I would move out and go to school and find independence.

Sitting in the front seat of the car, I felt differently. I felt alone and scared. I was terrified that I had made the wrong choice, that it was too soon, that I wasn’t ready.

I remember turning to my dad and asking, ‘Dad, if I asked you to turn this car around right now, would you do it?’

He replied, ‘Layla, sometimes you have to do things in life that will scare you. Like right now, I’m going to take my hands off of the wheel and cover my eyes!’

And he did, and I screamed and he laughed and kept on driving.

Petrified, I yelled for him to take me to Carleton as fast as he could, and they moved me in and set me up in my tiny residence room that (not surprisingly) was still bigger than my room at home. I was officially a grown up and I couldn’t even drink in Quebec.

My dad did all of the things I needed, from driving to Canadian Tire to pick up hooks for my door, to sitting with me and putting together my paper lantern Christmas lights since that was the first thing I wanted to do before unpacking my stuff.

My mum sat on my bed and unpacked my clothes, making sure all of my clothing was hanging in the same direction.

I could tell my parents were overwhelmed helping their firstborn move away. My parents, I think, deal with these emotions by doing everything they can to smooth the process, which I appreciate, but it quickened the time we needed to move in and before I knew it, we were done.

I’m not ashamed to admit that I cried when they left. My dad gave me a hug and a kiss and left, my mum told me not to cry because it would make her tear up, and she gave me a hug and a kiss and then they were both gone.

I remember still feeling unsure about my decision, but now I was stuck and I had to face the music.

Last night, I turned to my parents again for guidance about the next big step.

I asked them what I should do and where I should go, but like the last time I was faced with this decision, they did not provide any definitive answer.

My dad told me to go where I feel happiest; regardless if York or any other school offered me a bigger scholarship, so long as I had enough to get by, what should sway my decision is the people I have and the things I look forward to.

When I first moved to Ottawa, I hated the city. I didn’t feel that it was as exciting as Toronto, there weren’t enough music halls, or art galleries, or communities like the one I had left behind on Toronto Island.

Over the past four years, I have been proven wrong (well, maybe not about the live concerts, but I guess I’ll live for another twelve months).  I have changed and experienced more than I could have ever predicted, and the people who are now around me I am thankful and grateful for. I am lucky.

For the first time in my life, I have made what I have always thought to be an impractical decision. I made a life decision based on my feelings, and not on the logistics of the choice.

The decision wasn’t easy. I miss my family and friends back home, I’m annoyed at missing huge life events with both of these groups of people, and I miss the city and Island community.

However, I chose Ottawa U because of the people I have here and the friends who feel like family. I chose it because of the communities I have become a part of. I chose it because I am excited to discover and explore parts of the city I have yet to see.

I have never made a decision based on emotion. I think being finished my undergraduate degree at 20, I am in a place where I am willing to jump in any direction, regardless of where I will land.

I have never been comfortable in any one place, and comfort often scares me. I am a thrill-seeker and adventurer, and I know that I will not have a permanent home for quite some time. There are too many places to see, too many people to meet, too many stories to hear and tell and share.

But I must admit, it’s kind of nice to know I have a sense of comfort here.

By |

When Anna Brown* found out she was pregnant, she says she was faced with one of the hardest decisions she would ever have to make.

“I have always supported a woman’s right to choose and that will never change. So when I had to make that choice for myself it was hard,” says Brown. “I came to consider the options of what my life would be like.”

Brown says she considered her financial and personal situation, but as a 20-year-old university student, she decided that she could not adequately support a child. She says she considered adoption, but did not think she could handle the reactions from her family once they found out she was pregnant.

“That left abortion,” says Brown. “It was a hard decision but ultimately it was the only one.”

Brown is just one example of the tens of thousands of Canadian women who undergo abortions every year.

For women like Brown, seeking abortion services could put her behind bars if a Conservative MP gets his way.

MP Stephen Woodworth has proposed a motion to form a federal committee that would debate the legal personhood of a fetus.

The motion is slated for debate Monday, April 26, and is guaranteed at least one full hour of debate time.

Declaring a fetus a legal person before birth would grant it the rights guaranteed under the Charter, including the right to life, and thus abortion would constitute murder.

“A fetus is part of a woman’s body and cannot be granted separate rights,” says Agathe Gramet-Kedzior, acting executive director of Canadians for Choice, a non-profit organization that provides education and research on reproductive services.

Woodworth, who served as a Catholic school board trustee before being elected as an MP, says medical experts will present information to the committee that will prove to them that life begins before birth. The committee would be composed of twelve members of Parliament.

The committee would then propose options to Parliament that would affirm, replace, or amend current legislation which Woodworth says is a “400-year-old law” that does not reflect “modern scientific evidence.”

Currently, Canadian law states that an individual becomes a legal person when he or she has fully exited the birth canal and is breathing independently.

“This law…fails to recognize the humanity of some human beings,” says Woodworth. “I think most Canadians intuitively know, and know from their own experience, that indeed a child is a human being before the moment of complete birth.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he will not reopen the abortion debate, however private members motions can still be put forth to do so.

“This shows the hidden agenda and true meanings of the Conservative government,” says Joyce Arthur, the executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). “It keeps his [Harper’s] right wing base happy and it lets him play both sides of the fence… it’s a political game, and it’s unfortunate because it’s women’s rights they’re playing with.”

Private member’s motions are unlikely to pass; especially ones that mimic previously failed motions and bills.

However, this debate is cause for concern for many women’s rights activists and the status of reproductive services in Canada that are already struggling to function properly and are getting tired of defending their legitimacy.

Abortion has a rocky history in Canada

In 1869, abortion was made illegal and punishable by life in prison. Providing information about birth control was also illegal. One hundred years later, in 1969, Parliament amended Section 251 of the Criminal Code, decriminalizing contraception and allowing for abortion in extreme circumstances.

Between 1969 and 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down anti-abortion laws, there was much debate, activism, and backlash surrounding access to abortion services.

The Abortion Caravan, composed of a group of feminist activists, traveled in 1970 from Vancouver to Ottawa to advocate for reproductive health care. For the first time in Canadian history, Parliament was closed after thirty of these women chained themselves to the parliamentary gallery in the House of Commons.

Between 1970 and 1988, the anti-choice movement generated a strong backlash against this activism, including sending death threats and hate mail to abortion providers, as well as committing acts of violence against doctors who performed these procedures.

In 1988, the Supreme Court stated that anti-choice legislation violates women’s rights to life, liberty, and security.

In reaction to the violent anti-choice activism, the BC Court of Appeal restored the Access to Abortion Services Act in 1995: It prohibits protests outside of abortion clinics and the homes of abortion providers.

“There have been many anti-choice private members bills presented in the past that purport to look at fetal personhood and fetal rights. In fact, their primary motivation is to erode abortion rights and women’s rights,” says Gramet-Kedzior.

This includes Motion M-83, put forward in 2003, by MP Gary Breitkrutz, that would examine whether abortions were medically necessary.

In 2006, MP Paul Steckle introduced Bill C-338, a bill that would criminalize abortions performed after 20 weeks. In 2008, Private Member’s Bill C-484, known as the “Unborn Victims of Crime Act,” would have declared a fetus to be a legal person.

None of these motions or bills eventually passed, although all made it through a first reading.

As health care is a provincial responsibility, Conservative provinces, Northern and rural communities have inadequate access compared to the “good to excellent” access of urban cities, says Arthur of ARCC.

Women in New Brunswick are required to have referrals from two doctors to have an abortion at one of two hospitals, or the sole clinic, that offer the procedure.

The province of Prince Edward Island does not offer abortion services but will pay for the procedure for women who are willing to travel elsewhere. This creates an accessibility issue, as young or poor women may not be able to afford the travel costs.

But even larger cities can have inadequate services.

“Honestly, I waited too long in the waiting room,” says Brown. “I was naked under a gown watching Good Morning America in a room of strangers dressed the same.”

Why abortion is important for women’s health

While abortion has a tumultuous history in Canada, the consequences of potentially reopening the debate are severe for maintaining women’s health and security.

“If there were a redefining of personhood under the Criminal Code it would come into direct conflict with women’s rights under the Charter,” says Gramet-Kedzior.

Taking away a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term violates her right to security of the person, including the right to privacy of the body and its health.

The Canadian Medical Association says that choosing to have an abortion should be a decision made between a patient and her doctor.

“When it’s not legal, women turn to unskilled practitioners or try to do it themselves, and they die or become injured. It just doesn’t work to limit abortion to criminal or civil law,” says Arthur.

The impact of anti-choice legislation

Conservative MP Woodworth acknowledges that anti-choice ideology creates a conflict of rights: the bodily rights of a woman versus the rights of an unborn fetus.

“There can still be a question about what point a child becomes a human being,” says Woodworth. He says present legislation “strips children of any recognition or rights until the moment of complete birth.” 

He says that the pro-choice position believes that “if there’s a good enough reason, we can pick on any group or person and say they’re not human. We all know that from the moment of conception the material is alive, it’s not a dead thing that happens when an egg is fertilized… We’re not talking about when life begins. For that, there’s no question.”

Anti-choice believes that life begins at conception, or before complete birth. They hold the rights of this belief above a woman’s bodily rights.

“Women have constitutional rights and you can’t take them away and give them to fetuses,” says Arthur. “The definition of a human being is proven based on found principle. It fits within our human rights framework that we use today… Women are much better off when they have the power to decide when, whether and how many children to have.”

The language MP Woodworth uses neglects the fact that the fetus is not an individual, but an entity completely dependent on a woman’s body, says Arthur

“He’s begging the question and assuming the conclusion,” says Arthur. “He believes fetuses are children with human rights and then says we need to determine that.”

There are approximately 100,000 abortions performed every year in Canada, says Arthur.

If these pregnancies are carried to full-term, there will be serious consequences for social services.

Without abortion services, there will be a bigger strain on existing childcare services, including child protective and children’s aid services, to deal with unwanted pregnancies.

If a woman suffers a miscarriage or stillbirth, she could be held criminally responsible for the death of the child as it could be seen as involuntary manslaughter. This would put more strain on our court systems. 

“Medicine is not governed by criminal law,” says Arthur. “Pregnancy is a health condition and taking a legal approach to it is the wrong approach.”

The anti-choice movement

Anti-choice rhetoric often depicts abortion as being something that commonly happens in the third trimester, but this is not the case, says Arthur.

Abortions are legal in Canada until 20 weeks.

To have an abortion, the patient must go through a series of tests to determine the conception date. This determines what procedure will be done.

“The whole abortion procedure took two days,” says Brown. “I spent one day going to the hospital and getting a blood sample to estimate of age of the fetus. The next day the actual procedure took place.”

After 20 weeks, an abortion is only performed in an emergency situation, for example, if the mother’s life is at risk. A fetus born up until 20 weeks would likely not survive.

MP Woodworth says that society has developed towards protecting human rights, and that a fetus may be subject to these rights.

“The decision in the 1850s in the United States to declare Blacks were not persons under the American law is similar to the decision in Canada in the early twentieth century to declare that women were not persons under some Canadians laws. It is wrong in principle. So, I think that the defense of human rights is important at any time at any age,” says Woodworth. “It’s akin to saying should a blonde be given the same rights as every other Canadian.”

Next steps

“Should Canada in the 21st century have a law that says some human beings are not human beings?” asks Woodworth.

However, implementing laws that possess ideology that is not a universal truth for all Canadians is too dangerous.

Arthur says that the best way to help children is to make sure pregnant women have adequate support and health services, including the right to control their bodies.

After all, the de-criminalization of abortion services was not the beginning of women having abortions.

Rather, it was the end of women like Brown suffering or dying, as they no longer have had to take extreme measures to gain control of their bodies, and their lives.

“I’m lucky to not have run into any anti-choice protesters during the ordeal,” says Brown. “That would have been the worst. The frequency with which I see such groups in Ottawa or on campus seems to make up for it though.”

Brown says she still thinks about her abortion every day. It was not a decision she made easily and it will have lasting effects.

However, she had a choice, and she says she feels she made the right one.

By |

“The thing is, it’s patriarchy that says men are stupid and monolithic and unchanging and incapable. It’s patriarchy that says men have animalistic instincts and just can’t stop themselves from harassing and assaulting. It’s patriarchy that says men can only be attracted by certain qualities, can only have particular kinds of responses, can only experience the world in narrow ways. Feminism holds that men are capable of more – are more than that.”

By |

‘The face of poverty is a woman. Of the 1.4 billion people living on just over $1 a day, 70% are women and girls. Women do 2/3 of the world’s work, but earn only 10% of the world’s income. Women produce over half of the world’s food, but own only 1% of it’s land. Of the almost 900 million adults who can’t read or write, 2/3 are women. Women and girls are the poorest, most excluded group.’

Let’s change the world. Fight for gender equality. Health care, access to clean water, and education are what will save us from ourselves. Educate the women and watch out.

By |

Fashion is one of the very few forms of expression in which women have more freedom than men. And I don’t think it’s an accident that it’s typically seen as shallow, trivial, and vain. It is the height of irony that women are valued for our looks, encouraged to make ourselves beautiful and ornamental… and are then derided as shallow and vain for doing so. And it’s a subtle but definite form of sexism to take one of the few forms of expression where women have more freedom, and treat it as a form of expression that’s inherently superficial and trivial. Like it or not, fashion and style are primarily a women’s art form. And I think it gets treated as trivial because women get treated as trivial.

Fashion is a Feminist Issue: Greta Christina