‘Good for her’ Feminist Porn Awards…

Here’s an interesting article about the Canadian feminist pornography awards. Now, pornography is a contentious issue within the feminist community but I think that what these awards are doing is a great thing. What they recognize is pornography that represents a multitude of desires and positionalities and which also rethinks and revises the ways in which women of colour are depicted (which in traditional pornography is usually in a highly fetishized and racist way).

Aren’t feminism and porn oxymorons? Good For Her is comprised of feminists who sell and rent porn. In 2006 they decided that it wasn’t enough to criticize adult films for not adequately representing women’s — and in many cases — male sexuality, and inaugurated the Feminist Porn Awards. This year’s celebration brings together a group of incredible filmmakers who are changing how women and people of colour are represented in adult films…

Anna Span is the UK’s first female porn director. She has an MA in philosophy, having written her thesis on women and pornography. Simone Valentino who starred in the first erotic film aimed at women of colour, directed by a woman of colour. Shine Louise Houston is the only queer woman of colour with a distribution deal for her erotic films. Peggy Comstock and her partner Tony are innovators of a new style of indie-documentary porn which features real life couples.

Directly due to the 2006 Awards, Good For Her’s porn sales tripled, proving that people are eager for an alternative. They want progressive porn that represents women differently, caters to a wide variety of tastes and offers relief from the mainstream porn aesthetic.

Good for Her believes that sexual representation is political, and that women deserve to have porn that shows sexuality in its fullness. They wanted to introduce the world to adult films whereby women have a voice in how sex is represented; a world where women experience authentic pleasure and are not reduced to tired sexual stereotypes. As 2006 winner and Village Voice columnist, Tristan Taormino says “Feminist porn both responds to dominant images with alternative ones and creates its own iconography.”

I recently did a project on pornography and I must say that I was truly disturbed by how much misogyny and violence is implicit within the genre. Feminist pornography is therefore ultimately very important. For example, I’ve seen a trailer for Tony Comstock’s indie-documentaries and they are truly moving and aesthetically beautiful as they try to tell the real story of couples who have been together for years and truly love each other. His depictions of seuxality are truly revolutionary within the porn industry and help to refocus the discourse around sexuality to one in which women are equal partners and are loved and respected instead of exploited and used.

Advertisements

Negative Representations of the body???

I have been taking a very interesting Women’s Studies class and we have bee talking about representations of the body. How do negative representations of the body effect young adult women? How do they play into our interactions in classroom settings and the workplace? What do you think?

Gang Rape in Darfur… I have no words.

There is nothing that I can say about this that can possibly contextualize it or explain it. I will therefore not say anything and let the words and stories of the victims speak for themselves. Here are some quotes from this story about rape in Darfur:

The seven women pooled money to rent a donkey and cart, then ventured out of the refugee camp to gather firewood, hoping to sell it for cash to feed their families. Instead, they say, in a wooded area just a few hours walk away, they were gang-raped, beaten and robbed.

“All the time it lasted, I kept thinking: They‘re killing my baby, they‘re killing my baby,” wailed Aisha, who was seven months pregnant at the time.

[….]

The women said they set out on a Monday morning last July and had barely begun collecting the wood when 10 Arabs on camels surrounded them, shouting insults and shooting their rifles in the air.

The women first attempted to flee. “But I didn‘t even try, because I couldn‘t run,” being seven months pregnant, said Aisha, a petite 18-year-old whose raspy voice sounds more like that of an old woman.

She said four men stayed behind to flay her with sticks, while the other janjaweed chased down the rest of her group.

“We didn‘t get very far,” said Maryam, displaying the scar of a bullet that hit her on the right knee.

Once rounded up, the women said, they were beaten and their rented donkey killed. Zahya, 30, had brought her 18-year-old daughter, Fatmya, and her baby. The baby was thrown to the ground and both women were raped. The baby survived.

Zahya said the women were lined up and assaulted side by side, and she saw four men taking turns raping Aisha. The women said the attackers then stripped them naked and jeered at them as they fled.

No Period? period.

Hey ya’ll,

Apologies for the long hiatus. I’m now up in Prince George (northern BC) and having a blast finding cool crafters and activists :)

I get weekly updates from Feminist.org, a US-based feminist organization dedicated to research/action that empowers women economically, socially, and politically, and this news feed really jumped out at me:

5/23/2007 – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced yesterday that Lybrel, the first low-dose oral contraceptive that eliminates monthly menstruation, is now approved for use in the US. Taken daily, Lybrel continuously delivers lower doses of the synthetic hormones found in traditional birth control pills, which are usually taken for 21 days followed by seven days of placebo pills. According to Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the company that manufactures Lybrel, the regimen is just as effective as other FDA-approved oral contraceptives.

Many women’s health advocates welcome the FDA’s approval of a new option for women. “This pill is safe and effective,” said Feminist Majority Foundation Medical Director Dr. Beth Jordan. “In fact, many doctors have prescribed this regimen to patients — and have used it themselves — for decades. Now we have a dedicated product with years of safety data behind it.”

Based on clinical research, Wyeth found that 59 percent of women taking Lybrel stopped bleeding after six months. Eighteen percent of participants, however, dropped out of the clinical trials due to bleeding and spotting. Wyeth also found that interest in the pill depended on a woman’s personal approach to monthly periods. Fifty percent of women surveyed by Wyeth said they welcomed their periods as an indicator that they were not pregnant, while 25 percent said they saw their periods as a “natural part of womanhood,” according to Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report. In all, about two-thirds of women surveyed were interested in eliminating monthly periods.

Now I, for one, consider menstruation a political event, especially when pharmaceutical companies are involved. What does everyone think about this new drug?

Using drugs to eliminate periods is hardly a new idea (e.g. Depo-Provera) and I am still not convinced they are a good idea.

I am frustrated that society keeps telling me that bleeding every month is something to be cleaned up and fixed. Why aren’t we brought up to celebrate our moon-times and feel connected to our power as females?

I am sure these drug companies are ONLY acting in the best interest of the environment because they KNOW that on average, a woman will throw out about 250-300 pounds of tampons, pads, and applicators in her lifetime (see www.keeper.com for great alternative menstrual products). Thanks guys.

Of course I fully support women who need to use similar drugs to control dysmennorhea or other conditions, but I object that this product will now be marketed to all 12-59 yr. old women as the newest convenience that they cannot live without. I feel like I have to start creating provincial parks in my body to protect my natural functions.

Am I just being reactionary? Let me know!

Edith

Finding Dawn: The story of three murdered aboriginal women in Canada

This is a fascinating film about the murder of three aboriginal women in Western Canada which begins in Vancouver’s East Side and follows different stories along the Highway of Tears and back to Saskatchewan.

Welsh’s Finding Dawn takes a raw look at the lives and deaths of three women murdered or missing in Western Canada. The filmmaker dissects the factors that contribute to violence against aboriginal women, often leading back to the colonization of First Nations tribes.

The emotionally trying film begins on Vancouver’s East Side, where Dawn Crey, a woman removed from her family and sexually abused as a child, used to live before she disappeared. Crey was identified as Woman No. 23 through DNA found on the Pickton farm in Port Coquitlam, B.C.

Welsh also travels on the “Highway of Tears” in northern British Columbia, where teenager Ramona Wilson was murdered on the same night of her town’s high school graduation. The girl is one of many women killed in the area near the junction of the Yellowhead Highway and B.C.’s Highway 37. In Saskatoon, Welsh tells the story of mother and student Daleen Bosse, who went missing three years ago. Bosse is one of 17 aboriginal women classified as missing since 1964 in Saskatchewan — Welsh’s and Acoose’s home province.

“Lots of people in our communities have gone missing, but how can you just miss a human being?” Acoose said.

With the number of aboriginal women going missing and being murdered or abused, I believe this is an incredibly important film and hope that you all have a chance to see it.

Women take Manitoba’s elections by storm…

Tags

manitoba election

How could I not comment on this? A record number of women were elected to Manitoba’s provincial legislature! Great work for these women and congratulations Manitoba for now leading Canada in the percentage of women representatives in their legislature.

A record number of women were elected to the Manitoba legislature in Tuesday’s election — a change some say could affect the government’s priorities.

Of the new MLAs elected Tuesday night, five are women. That gives female MLAs a historic high of 18 seats — nearly a third of the legislature’s 57-seat total and double the number in the 1988 election.

Thirteen women are now members of the NDP caucus, while five hold office under the Conservative banner.

“I believe the legislature should look more like the people that elect us, and we look a little more like Manitoba today than we did before,” said Jennifer Howard, one of the new faces in the legislature and the NDP MLA for Fort Rouge.

Wow! I’m so excited. I think a lot of credit does have to go to the NDP party and their commitment to including women within their ranks. But even in this excitement… we do need to point out that women still only represent one third of the legislatures ranks. It’s a little sad that in 2007 we’re getting excited about the historic nature of finally having women represent a third of a legislature. But enough complaining! Here’s another great quote:

“[It’s] a step forward for women, and it’s a step forward for all Manitobans, because women are half,” re-elected Seine River MLA Theresa Oswald, a New Democrat, said Tuesday.

“We don’t see that yet represented in our legislatures across Canada, but we’re making a real stride here … in Manitoba and I’m grateful for that.”

Howard said she looks forward to getting to work — and to seeing more women elected to the legislature in the future.

“Manitoba was the first province where women won the right to vote, so we have a proud history of women being involved in politics, and I only think it’s going to get better.”

Gary Doer’s NDP was elected for a historic third majority with 36 seats, compared to 19 for the Progressive Conservatives and two for the Liberals.

The Grass Roots of a Woman’s Campaign

My apologies for yesterday, my computer had decided that as it was summer it too could go on vacation. It seems to be working now, so I’ve got a few words of interest…

Some of the issues that we touch on in this Blog are recurrent, granted, in differing situations and climates, but, nonetheless, they just won’t go away. This is one of them: Why must women learn how to ‘play’ politics?

An article on a Colorado News Archive chronicles the emergence of a political boot camp for women. The boot camp is labelled as an enabling forum for women where they learn how to campaign within their own communities. An interesting moment in the article is the observation by a young single mother that children and politics were not ‘mutually exclusive.’

The 28-year-old wondered about how she could make the jump into politics — running for city council in Laramie — because the prime time for knocking on doors soliciting votes was family time.

She got her answer at a Denver political boot camp for women when Pam Anderson, clerk and recorder of suburban Jefferson County, explained how as a graduate student she canvassed neighborhoods with her two children in a little red wagon.

“Hearing they can come with me was an ‘ah-ha’ moment for me. I can make it work,” said Walsh, who expects her children to be riding bikes by the time she runs in 2008 or 2010.

It would be interesting to examine the reactions from those she canvassed upon the recognition of her ‘support.’ That is, whether or not the presence of the children had a negative effect on her ability to earn votes. Politics, as it is usually conducted, does not accomodate playing ‘house’ outside of the house of commons. This Boot camp is an attempt to subvert the structuring of politics which works against overburdended women from a grass roots perspective.

Women who have been elected said they thought their gender helped them.
Democratic State Rep. Morgan Carroll told attendees she thought women appeal to the “anti-status quo voters” who are upset about corruption. Lola Spradley, a Republican and the first woman to serve as Colorado’s House speaker, said women can appeal to voters because of a “lack of arrogance.”

While I think this camp is an important step in the right direction for women seeking to enter politics, since it encourages women to work together, I do think there are a number of misrecognitions contained within its aims as well. I think the camp could be broadened to include men as well. This way, not only is it dismantling gender opposition within politics, but it would be a fundamental recognition of the socio–economic forces which dis’able‘ women seeking office in the first: the burden of care, and the perception of women as an ‘alternative’ to men–not as a primary option. The crux of the problem lies here:

Before she sent her students on to classes on fundraising and dealing with the media, MacDonald, a former teacher, noted how female interns she worked with on the Ritter campaign were more reluctant to speak out than the males. She said she thought women sometimes keep quiet until they think they’ve mastered something — but she said that won’t work in the “boys club” of politics.

I congratulate these women for taking a courageous in the right direction, but, I still wonder why women’s campaigns must always begin at such a level. That is, the grass roots approach at campaigning advocated by this camp is somewhat worrisome–must women always be obliged make a personal connection with their potential supporters? Does their “lack of arrogance” hinge on their duty to ‘out canvass‘ their male counterparts? We at Antigone advocate that politics is personal, certainly, but why only at the Grass Roots level?

The Grass Roots of a Woman’s Campaign

My apologies for yesterday, my computer had decided that as it was summer it too could go on vacation. It seems to be working now, so I’ve got a few words of interest…

Some of the issues that we touch on in this Blog are recurrent, granted, in differing situations and climates, but, nonetheless, they just won’t go away. This is one of them: Why must women learn how to ‘play’ politics?

An article on a Colorado News Archive chronicles the emergence of a political boot camp for women. The boot camp is labelled as an enabling forum for women where they learn how to campaign within their own communities. An interesting moment in the article is the observation by a young single mother that children and politics were not ‘mutually exclusive.’

The 28-year-old wondered about how she could make the jump into politics — running for city council in Laramie — because the prime time for knocking on doors soliciting votes was family time.

She got her answer at a Denver political boot camp for women when Pam Anderson, clerk and recorder of suburban Jefferson County, explained how as a graduate student she canvassed neighborhoods with her two children in a little red wagon.

“Hearing they can come with me was an ‘ah-ha’ moment for me. I can make it work,” said Walsh, who expects her children to be riding bikes by the time she runs in 2008 or 2010.

It would be interesting to examine the reactions from those she canvassed upon the recognition of her ‘support.’ That is, whether or not the presence of the children had a negative effect on her ability to earn votes. Politics, as it is usually conducted, does not accomodate playing ‘house’ outside of the house of commons. This Boot camp is an attempt to subvert the structuring of politics which works against overburdended women from a grass roots perspective.

Women who have been elected said they thought their gender helped them.
Democratic State Rep. Morgan Carroll told attendees she thought women appeal to the “anti-status quo voters” who are upset about corruption. Lola Spradley, a Republican and the first woman to serve as Colorado’s House speaker, said women can appeal to voters because of a “lack of arrogance.”

While I think this camp is an important step in the right direction for women seeking to enter politics, since it encourages women to work together, I do think there are a number of misrecognitions contained within its aims as well. I think the camp could be broadened to include men as well. This way, not only is it dismantling gender opposition within politics, but it would be a fundamental recognition of the socio–economic forces which dis’able‘ women seeking office in the first: the burden of care, and the perception of women as an ‘alternative’ to men–not as a primary option. The crux of the problem lies here:

Before she sent her students on to classes on fundraising and dealing with the media, MacDonald, a former teacher, noted how female interns she worked with on the Ritter campaign were more reluctant to speak out than the males. She said she thought women sometimes keep quiet until they think they’ve mastered something — but she said that won’t work in the “boys club” of politics.

I congratulate these women for taking a courageous in the right direction, but, I still wonder why women’s campaigns must always begin at such a level. That is, the grass roots approach at campaigning advocated by this camp is somewhat worrisome–must women always be obliged make a personal connection with their potential supporters? Does their “lack of arrogance” hinge on their duty to ‘out canvass‘ their male counterparts? We at Antigone advocate that politics is personal, certainly, but why only at the Grass Roots level?

It’s about time…

Tags

bill c-57

On another note, the government is (thankfully) poised to introduce Bill C-57. This bill, if passed, will eliminate the “exotic dancer” visa–which has contributed to the exploitation of hundreds, if not thousands of women as ‘official prostitutes.’ Canada was recently given a failing grade in its efforts to stop human trafficking by the Future Group. This bill marks the beginning of an improvement to our poor efforts (or perhaps even “the” beginning) in arresting the trafficking and subsequent abuse of young women.
An article on the “Life Site” (yes, I know, Amanda) illuminates Canada’s poor performance in preventing the exploitation of women under the Liberal government, and discusses the bill.

‘Strippergate’ indeed. Sigh. Is it only alarming to me that such a policy (the ‘exotic dancer’ visa) was in place under our ‘Liberal’ government?

Can Women Run as Women?

Well,

The defeat of Segolene Royal repeats a pronounced trend in Western democratic practices. As an article in The Montreal Gazette demonstrates, there is indeed peril in “playing gender politics.” (Although only for women it seems). Though Royal was running in France–where democratic practice occurs in a decidedly male arena–her defeat, and subsequent ridicule, are sore points for women everywhere.
Royal ran as a woman first and foremost, she hedged her bets on the belief that women would support a female candidate–they did not. Why? The difficulty for me lies not so much in the fact that she lost, which is reasonable given that she did, above all, stand for a party, but that she received next to no support. Though political sexism in France is notorious–and heavily entrenched in the national mentality–the scant amount of support she received speaks to an ominous reality. Women seeking to run must either adapt a mode of “Thatcherism,” or risk defeat on the basis of (admittedly constructed) gender expectations. Or, as this article suggests, was even Thatcher’s victory a result of circumstance and not behaviour? Are women only to be admitted into politics in times of dire need?
What is to be done about all this? I want to open this up to those who are perhaps more knowledgeable than I about European politics. Although I still think my claim stands (that the lack of support for Royal’s position cannot be justified solely by party politics), perhaps others could shed some light on this phenomenon…
If women cannot run as women (for more on this see Amanda’s post on Hillary Clinton) then what are we running for?
The article also notes:

The men Royal bested in November’s primary were back for blood. Laurent Fabius, the former Socialist prime minister who reacted to Royal’s candidacy by asking who would look after her children, sniped: “The left, it is about the ‘we,’ it is not about the ‘I’. “

Royal has fought back, boldly claiming the party leadership, although it is unlikely the Socialists will hand the party to the woman who presided over its third consecutive presidential defeat.

For a party looking for a scapegoat, Royal presents a perfect target. Her campaign floundered over unsourced spending promises and a surprising ignorance of world affairs.

Are women to remain nothing more than political scapegoats? Must we be “desperate” in order to accept a female leader?
Royal’s defeat echoes the defeat of Pauline Marois, who ran for the leadership of the Parti Quebecois and lost to a much younger Andre Boisclair. Marois will run again and is poised to win–are we desperate or is Marois‘s imminent victory a result of her increased experience?
Only ‘gender rules’ can tell…