This summit is so important because it focuses on the rights of people over the right to make a large profit. I love picking up trash and bringing my reusable bag. Small actions are what inspire us to strive to become a better person, but the media, government and corporations use these as a deterrent to the real destructive force of nature, which is this universal mantra of profit over people. Profit over the health of our planet. We need to start giving life more weight than war or gold.

Change your light bulb today yes, but let’s try to change the system to.

Get some more info about the summit here at Democracy Now!

Here is my old blog again (this was in reaction to France):

Originally posted at Shameless.

I probably don’t need to tell you that size acceptance / fat acceptance (SA/FA) has lots of opponents. One would think it’s hard to argue that feeling good about yourself is a bad thing, but I’ve encountered a surprising (and disappointing) number of people who think that fat people having high self-esteem is dangerous – they might actually dare to stay fat! The horror!

These people are often of the opinion that fat is gross, and that’s all there is to it. This belief is impossible to counter, since personal aesthetics are just that – personal. But why do other people get to decide whether how you look is acceptable or not? As I explained in my last post, SA/FA makes the very important “personal autonomy” argument: the way your body looks is no one’s business but your own. You do not owe it to anyone to be attractive to them.

The other main argument made by opponents to SA/FA is that fat is unhealthy. Kate Harding at Shapely Prose provides a fabulous overview, complete with links, explaining why this correlation just isn’t as black-and-white as people think. The main points I’m going to discuss from her list are that 1) fat is not an accurate indicator of the way people treat their bodies or their state of health, and 2) diets don’t work.

People are built differently, and weight is largely genetic (within a range). There is a popular assumption that fat people must spend their time munching on donuts and watching TV while their asses grow bigger. In fact, there are fat athletes, fat vegans, fat health fanatics … you get the picture. Of course, there are also fat people who eat poorly and don’t exercise. Fat people are constantly advised to eat more healthfully, eat less, and exercise more, no matter what their current behaviours or health measurables (blood sugar, blood pressure, etc.) are.

Conversely, everyone knows someone who subsists primarily on junk food, is a couch potato, and is thin. These people are considered “lucky.” Why aren’t they constantly told to eat better and exercise? Because they’re thin. Too many health professionals and members of the general population use the Body Mass Index (BMI) as the be-all, end-all of health determination, even though the BMI was never intended to be such a rigid guide and is generally accepted to be badly flawed. For a visual representation of how bizarre the BMI standards are, check out Kate’s BMI Project.

Even if fat were in itself a health concern, there’s a pretty major obstacle to overcoming it: no one has figured out a safe, long-term method of making a fat person thin. There’s also some pretty strong evidence that yo-yo dieting, or weight cycling, is more harmful than maintaining a consistent higher weight. It’s often said that 95% of diets fail over a five-year period. As a former chronic yo-yo dieter, I can attest to this first-hand. I never maintained weight loss for longer than a year at a time, sometimes even gaining weight while still dieting (I point this out to combat the argument that I must have simply stopped practicing “good behaviours” and let the weight come back on. Not so much). Since giving up dieting, my weight has settled within ten pounds of what I weighed before my first diet. Coincidence … ?

“Thanks to the magic of Christmas, [Santa] can avoid putting on that much weight,” said medical society spokesman Chuck Moran. But most people aren’t so fortunate, and will put on one pound for every 3,500 calories consumed but not burned.

Because naturally, the most important lesson children should learn during the holiday season is that cookies and other treats should be restricted, that weight gain is “unfortunate,” and that even though Santa’s magic prevents him from gaining weight, unrestrained eating is still inherently bad. Even when it’s during a special occasion.

As pointed out by A Sarah at Shapely Prose, it seems we’ve forgotten that children are actually supposed to gain weight (growth, remember?). Children should be allowed to get excited about having treats. Children, particularly young girls, who are most susceptible to developing eating disorders, should not be focused on the “Santa Snack Plan” (which suggests, among other things – hello! eating disorder trigger! – “taking only small tastes of less healthy food”). Younger and younger girls (and boys, but in smaller numbers) are becoming obsessed with weight and calories. What happened to being a kid and going crazy for holiday desserts?

The various holidays celebrated this time of year seem to have the enjoyment of family, friends and good food in common. There are enough adults moaning about calories and New Year’s resolutions to lose weight – do we really need to start guilting children about holiday indulgences, too?

This is cross-posted from my series on size acceptance on Shameless. I’ll be re-posting my guest-blogging posts from November, and then I’ll start to write some new stuff!

One of the main issues in the movement is actually what to call it. While I have settled on the term “size acceptance,” many folks in the movement use “fat acceptance” to describe what they do. This term works because most of the negative stereotypes and body-bashing these people seek to refute are about fat people. Some other activists choose the term “size acceptance” to reflect the fact that people of all shapes and sizes are affected by stereotypes, lazy science, expectations, eating disorders, etc. I take this approach because I think that society’s standards for acceptable body size and shape harm everyone, but I don’t quarrel with the term “fat acceptance” one bit. It’s true that fat people experience a different kind of discrimination and pressure, and that in general, Western society demonizes fat.

One of the most prominent alternatives to the “thinner is better” paradigm is a concept called Health at Every Size (HAES). The idea is simply that health can be measured in so many ways that are completely separate from weight, and that one can be fat and healthy. Or thin and healthy. Or disabled and healthy. Or with a chronic illness and healthy. “Health” can be defined differently for everyone! Practicing HAES means respecting diversity of sizes and shapes, eating for pleasure as well as trying a diversity of nutritious food, and enjoying whatever types of movement your body is capable of and make you feel good. Doesn’t that sound nicer than counting calories and punishing your body with exercise you feel you have to do? Trust me, having experienced both: it is way nicer.

Finally, a major part of size acceptance is the concept of body autonomy. Some people, when they first hear about the movement, think that it means we’re telling everyone to eat only junk food, never exercise, and be fat. Setting aside the fact that not everyone who eats a lot of junk food and lives a sedentary lifestyle is fat (more on the connections between fat and health in a future post), the assertion is ridiculous. The whole concept of size acceptance is rooted in accepting your size, be it fat, thin, or anything in between. By extension, this also means accepting others’ sizes and respecting their bodies and the ways they choose to use them. You do not owe it to anyone else, and they do not owe it to you, to fit a certain size or personal aesthetic. Your body is no one’s business but your own.

Next up: debunking some of the myths about body size and health.

MEDIA ADVISORY – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Sex workers and allies mark 7^th International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, call for an end to violence

On December 17^th 2009, sex workers and their allies across Canada will mark the 7th International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers.  This day draws attention to acts of violence that continue to be committed against sex workers worldwide, and to the stigma and discrimination perpetuated by prohibitionist laws against sex work, which endanger our lives and work.

In light of the continuing violence faced by sex workers across the country, four groups that advocate for sex workers in Canada demand an end to criminalization and the removal of current laws around sex work that put sex workers lives in danger. “Sex workers are caught in a strange Catch-22 situation” said Chris Bruckert, President of POWER and Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa’s Department of Criminology, “While our work itself is legal, it is illegal for us to communicate about it beforehand, live off the avails of our work or run a private worksite.” Émilie Laliberté, spokesperson for Montreal’s sex worker group Stella adds, “These laws stigmatize us and force us to work in isolation, making us more vulnerable to violence.”  “Sex work is not violent in and of itself,” adds Rene Ross, director of Stepping Stone in Halifax, “It is the policies that criminalize sex workers’ lives and our work that foster violence against us”

The current legal regime around sex work in Canada has already been identified as ‘unacceptable’ by the House of Commons Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws. Jessica Yee, Board Member of Maggie’s: The Toronto’ Sex Worker’s Action Project and Executive Director of the Native Youth Sexual Health Network notes that “Even Parliament recognizes the laws aren’t working. Why then is the federal government still defending these laws in the current Charter challenge in Ontario? We insist that our government enact meaningful change to allow sex workers to work in a safe environment free of harassment and violence.”

“We also want to highlight the heightened risk of violence faced by Aboriginal sex workers,” added Yee.  “This has been gruesomely apparent in the murders of sex workers in British Columbia and Alberta, and the lack of police response has been especially disturbing. The lack of culturally relevant services, in addition to the racialized stigma and shame faced by Aboriginal sex workers, increases our vulnerability to violence.”

Maggie’s, Stella, Stepping Stone and POWER demand that the federal government strike down the laws that criminalize sex workers and put us in danger.  The criminalization of our work robs us of the right to security. Decriminalization of sex work gives workers more control and safety in our workplaces. This December 17^th we remind the public that decriminalization saves lives.
_____________________________

Maggie’s (Toronto) is an organization run for and by sex workers. Our mission is to assist sex workers in our efforts to live and work with safety and dignity. We are founded on the belief that in order to improve our circumstances, sex workers must control our own lives and destinies. Contact: Jessica Yee (416) 419-6937, jyee@nativeyouthsexualhealth.com

Stella (Montreal) is a community group run by and for sex workers.  Stella’s objectives are to offer to support and information to sex workers so that we may live and work in safety and security and with dignity.  Stella supports the total decriminalization of all forms of sex work.  Contact: Émilie Laliberté, porte parole (514) 285-1599, stelladirection@videotron.ca

POWER (Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work Educate & Resist) is a non-profit, voluntary organization run by and for sex workers. We envision a society in which sex workers are able to practice their professions free of legal and social discrimination, victimization, harassment and violence and in which sex work is valued as legitimate and fulfilling work making an important contribution to society. Contact: Chris Bruckert (819) 661-3785

Stepping Stone (Halifax) provides support to former and current sex workers and holds the philosophy that all individuals have the right to self determination. Stepping Stone believes that sex workers deserve the basic right to health and safety and are entitled to social and economic alternatives to sex work. Contact: Rene Ross, Director rene@stepping-stone.org (902) 420-0103

If you have something specific you’d like to see me cover, please, please speak up and let me know. Let’s make this a conversation!

Just a sidenote, when discussing confidentiality between parishoners and clergy, isn’t it the CLERGY that’s supposed to keep what parishoners tell them confidential and NOT the other way around????  This Bishop has the nerve to claim that Kennedy should have kept their conversation confidential.  The only reason I could think of is that the bishop knows that it’s frowned upon to use communion as political threat and is embarrassed that it became public.

Now, this bishop is trying to stand behind the argument that Kennedy chose to take this statement public, but public or not, he made it and surely made it to intimidate Kennedy into either giving up a part of his faith due to his political beliefs or changing his political beliefs in order to participate in a certain aspect of his religion.

The conference of catholic bishops lobbied to control federal funding of abortions.  The only purpose this serves is to make sure that poor marginalized women don’t have access to abortion.  Rich women who can afford to pay out of pocket will still be able to have abortions.  Only women with money will be able to access to full healthcare that includes reproductive health.  Fair, isn’t it???

I know, I’m ranting.  That is all.

This really is a step in the right direction for women’s reproductive rights.

Of course, the conservative opposition has a problem with this, but the fact that this new bill even got past the first stage in the majority Catholic country shows that people’s attitudes are changing.  Furthermore, the same Socialist government is also trying to increase access to contraceptives for women and educate about sexual health to bring down the numbers of abortions.  Funny enough, the article didn’t mention that the conservative government tried to do the same during their eight year reign from 1996-2004.

I also just find it laughable that a protest organizer said that these moves will bring about more abortions.  As if women just get up one morning and say, “Gee, I  guess I’ll have an abortion today.  Sounds like fun!  Weeeeeee!!!”

I mean, really…..having an abortion isn’t fun, it’s a personal choice made by a woman who has to do what’s best for her.

Go, Socialist government in Spain!!!!

When we talk about sexual assault, there are many ways we think about sexual assault depending on who the survivor* is, the status she/he holds in society, the person’s sexual orientation, the relationship between the survivor and the perpetrator, that person’s occupation, WHAT that person was doing before/after the assault, and who the PERPETRATOR is.

Many people have different ideas about sexual assault depending on the situation.  For me, I ALWAYS believe the survivor.  

So, it disturbs me when a survivor is judged by what she/he was doing at the time of the assault.  The majority of sexual assault is perpetrated by someone the survivor knows, so people tend to assume the survivor must be lying or somehow “misunderstood”.  A large amount of sexual assaults take place with the influence of alcohol.  However, this fact is used to justify a sexual assault.  Comments like, “well, why would she get so drunk?” or “well, he was drunk too” or “why would she put herself in that situation?“ or the best, “well, if she didn’t drink so much, this wouldn’t have happened“  I find it funny though that alcohol is used to blame someone for “allowing” sexual assault to happen, but when the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol, at the drop of a hat, the presence of alcohol excuses their behaviour.

Myths

We’ve all heard them….you know the ones:

1)  women are mostly assaulted by strangers – Not true 80% percent of women are assaulted by people that they know, making it all the more difficult to report an assault because the survivor may not feel like anyone believes them, or they are scared of what will happen to them or their families if they report.  They’re also scared of what their community will think of them if they report.  Sexual assaults that take place by complete strangers dominate the media, making us feel as though it happens more often than it actually does.

2)  women lie about sexual assault for attention – People actually still believe this one.  As if some woman is going to put herself through being ostracized by some patriarchal society and be treated as a liar by the police, lawyers, media, and his/her own community for attention.  Furthermore, by calling every woman a liar when it comes to sexual assault reinforces the idea that women can never be raped unless she fits under a certain criteria.  In fact, I find it ironic that we talk about women lying about sexual assault because only 6% of assaults are even reported to the police.

3)  women are assaulted for dressing “too sexy” – You would think we were past this one – apparently not.  Women are still criticized for what they’re wearing when they’re assaulted.  As if the state of dress gives someone the right to rape you.  Also, this myth is another way to control women’s agency regarding what they choose to wear and if they don’t follow a patriarchal idea of what to wear, then she apparently deserves to be raped.

4)  sex workers can’t be raped – Um, yes they can.  If they are sex workers, they’re not a free for all.  If they tell YOU “no”.  Then it’s “no”.  They don’t have to have sex with you because they choose to make a living doing so.   Sex workers have the autonomy to CHOOSE who they sell sex to.

5) Husbands can’t rape their wives – *SIGH*  Apparently, people still view women as property, so that means their wives are available to them anytime they please.  Wives CAN be raped.  If a woman says “no”.  She means “no”.  She is not property to be conquered.

6)  women provoke rape by acting in certain ways- women are sexually assaulted in many different situations.  As well, anyone is allowed to act however they please without the threat of being assaulted by someone because they feel that they have the right to do so.  AND, flirting and asking for sexual attention isn’t an invitation to rape.  No at any point during sexual activity is NO.  The idea that a guy “deserves” sex because someone led them to believe they were getting some is having an undeserved sense of entitlement.

7)  if there’s no weapon, there couldn’t have been a rape – To be sexually assaulted or raped is a very terrifying thing.  Rape is a crime of POWER, NOT PASSION.  So, someone that clearly is exerting power over you is extremely scary.  Even just their body is a physical threat.  The threat of using a weapon or the presence of a weapon is enough to keep someone compliant.  I mean, if you worked at a bank and someone had their hand behind their back and told you to hand over all the money because they had a gun, would you test that fact??  Probably not, because you can’t be sure if there’s a gun or there isn’t.

If the survivor isn’t hysterical, they couldn’t have been raped – People are different, therefore, different people have different reactions to different things.  One of those things being sexual assault.  One person may be hysterical, crying and screaming after an assault.  However, another may be very calm and try to carry on normally.  This does not mean they weren’t sexually assaulted.

I mean, to most of us socially conscious people, those myths are nothing new and we know that they aren’t true.  However, to those that are NOT so socially conscious, these myths are seen to be somewhat true.

It’s hard for me to believe that it’s a lack of social consciousness when it comes to believing those things.   We live in a patriarchal society that still views women as inferior to men.  We also live in a society of entitlement, we have men that feel they are entitled to women’s bodies.  I’ve heard men talk about women who think they’re all that and have discussions like, “who does that bitch think she is saying no to!  I mean, I’m a nice guy!”  It’s now come to the point that women have to say yes to every guy that comes along to absolve their feelings of inadequacy, which is obviously unfair.

Treating women like second class citizens is dangerous because men who feel entitlement are prone to rape.  I can’t say that enough.  Men find excuses to excuse rape.  She was wearing sexy clothes, she was acting seductively, we were both drunk, etc.

I just feel like sexual assault is a crime that isn’t taken seriously because the majority of sexual assault takes places against women by men and  we don’t view crimes against women seriously.  More thoughts later.

This post is just an introductory post to sexual assault and I will hope to write in depth in the near future focusing on less topics involving sexual assault.

 *I use the term “survivor” to indicate a person that has survived sexual assault, rather than continually referring to people as victims

*In this post, I am focusing on sexual assault only involving men and women, but in another post in the future, I will focus on sexual assault involving all genders when I have more knowledge.