Out in the real world!

Hello all,

Sorry to have taken a hiatus during the past month or so, but the youth4change group was working hard on finishing up our campaign and commitments for the summer. We are no longer physically at CCASA, but our minds and thoughts still linger with their teachings and philosophies.

But you might be wondering, "If they are done working, why the writing?" Well I guess I still have things to say, and I definitely want to keep my involvement in the issue. Especially now since I am back in the real world and have been smacked in the face with reality once again.

During my 4 months of work at CCASA, I have been able to develop great friendships and comrades who all share same beliefs and opinion when it comes to the fight against sexual violence in our society. This sense of belonging has been such a support system and looking back on the summer, it would have been extremely hard to work on this issue had I been working on it alone. So this is one of my dilemmas when it comes to normal life again. I have returned to school and I can't help but feel alone when it comes to my beliefs and opinion (around social justice issues). Additionally I have come face to face with the very thing that our group has been trying to address all summer; acts of sexual harassment and objectification that are so popular in our civilized society today. The quick sexist joke here, the whistling there, and all I can do is furiously scan through my brain and tell myself, "SAY SOMETHING!" Well it definitely hasn't been that easy.

This is the prime example of how embedded these thoughts are and how difficult it is to stand up to people who are saying these rather offensive things. I state on the record that it is not easy to speak up. So what to do?

Well, I have been able to talk to some of my closer friends about the work I've done over the summer and answered any questions they had. Additionally, I have had a couple of discussions/debates with a few people about the issues and I've discovered a wonderful thing. I can actually explain and discuss the issue in an informative and constructive manner. I think it's important to understand that if we attack someones beliefs, we are disrespecting the individual, putting them lower than ourselves (which goes against everything that CCASA and I stand for). I have found that, when faced with a discussion around the issue where people are keen on holding onto their "myth based" beliefs, it's far more effective to simply start asking them questions like, "Well if it was your sister, (or other family member) would you think differently?" "Do you think they would ask to be assaulted?" "Just because it happened a long time ago do you think it should just disappear and be forgotten?"

Usually the discussion is able to continue and eventually some new facts are planted and the seeds of change begin to work their magic. I can't believe how many people truly believe sexual violence myths. I guess it goes back to my support system again. I have been able to work in an environment where myths do not exist and the issue is well understood. So being forced back into a world where people still believe that sexual assault and sexual abuse are results of a lack of prevention on the survivor's end is undeniably baffling. I see the world in a different light now, and I can't turn off the part of my brain that cries out, "it's time this stopped!"

On the C-Train a couple of days ago, for example, a group of male college students were gathered in a middle section of the train and started talking about the class they'd just left. One of the guys blurted out, "God, that teacher of ours is such a sexist bitch. She's so scared shitless that she's in a class of men that she can fucking teach right." All the other students nodded with agreement, and another one of the men said, "Yeah, that sexist bitch should go back to beauty school."

Now I have to explain the manner in which these group of men where expressing their ever so pleasant opinions. I had my headphones on and was at least 4 seats ahead of them and I could hear them loud and clear. Not only that, but I decided to take a good look around to see if anyone else was hearing what I was... and, low and behold, a young mother with her child were sitting probably 2 seats away. I couldn't believe that these guys were blurting out such offensive words in a public place with an obvious intent for others to hear. I was also amazed by how quickly they moved onto another topic (sports, drinking at Jared's that night). I tried not to listen to any more of the discussion, but it was quite difficult since I was becomming really agitated. This is just one example of unacceptable behaviour that I have encountered in the past 3 weeks.

So what do I take away from this grim reality that we seem to live in? Well I guess I have to admit that we live in a rather screwed up world, but I also believe that people can change it. I know that over time I will be able to pick my battles with those who decide to make light of sexist comments and harassment. I still have a lot to learn but over time things will change because those who surround me in my life support my beliefs and thoughts, so as long as my support is behind me I can keep moving forward.

So how do you all feel about the people in our society who seem to be completely oblivious to how their words and actions affect others?

Thanks again for all of those who have been supporting the blog, and make sure you check out CCASA's site (it's on the side bar).

My next post will talk about Roman Polanski, and his attempt to run away from drug affiliated rape charges from back in 1977... I'm a film student I have to examine this :) Till next time.

-KB Continue reading

New Rules to Help Rape Victims

I know all my previous posts regarding newspaper articles and TV commercials have been all about debunking myths and tearing apart the victim blaming. But I finally came upon an article that shines a little light onto the issues surrounding sexual violence. "New Rules to Help Rape Victims" is an article that was published in The Dominion Post (a New Zealand newspaper). This is the same paper that published "The Dark Side of a Girl's Night Out," the article that Joe blogged about in his last post. It's surprising to see such polar opposite mindsets in one newspaper.

Way too often cases are deemed inactive (not enough evidence to go to trial) because the survivor never explicitly said "no" during the assault. As KB posted earlier, there are different ways to react during an assault; fight, flight or freeze and not everyone will react the same way. Fortunately, the article has some positive news regarding this issue:

Defendants accused of rape could also face a new test of consent meaning a woman would effectively have to have said 'yes' to sexual activity rather than simply not saying 'no'.

This new rule will bring justice to all those who had a normal response to the attack by freezing. Passing this rule will no longer allow perpetrators to use the excuse that they didn't know the other party wasn't consenting. This puts the responsibility back on the offender to obtain consent before continuing rather than allowing them to push the boundaries until they hear a "no" which often isn't said. Consent is not difficult to identify. Either both parties are willing, active participants or verbal consent was freely given. Even if there is still uncertainty, JUST ASK and this rule puts emphasis on this.

This comes back to "yes means yes" rather than "no means no" because there are many ways to show resistance which aren't always verbal. Closing eyes, turning away, and laying limp are all signs of resistance but, as of now, these are not recognized by the law. This new rule will validate all those that showed signs of resistance but were ignored by the offender who continued anyway.

It is understood Mr Power wants to go further by restricting the ability of defence lawyers to discredit rape complainants by trawling through their sexual histories.

Defence lawyers would have to convince judges of the merit of such evidence before it could be admitted.

This is only common sense! What does sexual history have to do with someone's sexual assault? Anyone at anytime has the right to resist sexual advances and someone's sexual history plays no part in that. This is the pinnacle of victim blaming and it is done by our so called "justice system." The sexual assault itself is incredibly traumatizing on its own, but to be discredited by unrelated events is unimaginable. This new rule is a step towards equality when it comes to the justice system. There will not only be justice for "good girls," but for everyone no matter what their sexual history is.

Perhaps Canada could learn a thing or two from these actions taken by New Zealand. It's a few baby steps in the right direction. There is hope now that certain governments are taking progressive action and are becoming more sensitive to the issues of sexual violence.

Continue reading

I've lost count...

So one week ago I went to a football game here in Calgary. It was the Stamps vs. the Argos and it was a great way to spend a Friday night. The game was a lot of fun, but something really pissed me off. I know what you're thinking; some drunk guy high on testosterone did something totally stupid and inappropriate. Well, although that probably does happen, that's not what this story is about. The game passed without incident and I actually had a really good time, but what's important to this post is what happened after the football game.

I carpooled with a friend of mine who had a parking pass to one of the university lots, which was on the other side of campus where McMahon stadium is. After the game, we trekked through the U of C campus and made our way to her car. We were about 50 metres away when a silver Matrix came zooming by and what do I hear? "Owe, Owe!" Yes, the very definition of a catcall smacked me right in the face. What's even more "exciting" is how the car turned the corner for round two: "I'm lookin' at you baby!"

So what to do? I had half a second to pick my weapon of choice. Ignore the whole "wert whirl" incident and continue on my way as if nothing happened? Obviously shake my head to insinuate how immature the 5 boys were? Giggle and smile at them(as if!), or go over there and give them a piece of my feminist mind? Well I guess my subconscious didn't want to do any of the above, so without any effort I raised my hand and extend my middle finger.

Now this isn't to say that what I did was necessarily appropriate, but it felt damn good. Never had I taken the time or had the courage to do something like this. Had I been a couple of years younger, I would have rushed to the car and pretended that nothing happened. I would have been unhappy about the incident, but I would have passed it off as boy will be boys. Today, I have a different perspective. I understand the dynamics of homosocialism and the heavy burden that men must carry to prove their "masculinity." So even though I understand the reason behind the actions, I will never support the manner in which they carry out their goals. I am not a walking sign that says, 'Hey, I want to hear you shout all of your oppressive and objectifying crap!"

What I really want is to be seen as a person; a human being with feelings and thoughts. I am not a piece of meat that needs to be whistled at or laughed at.

Another aspect of these catcalls is how women interpret them. I've encountered some girls who don't mind being whistled at, and maybe even think of them as compliments (of course this is a objectifying social structure, which will be addressed at another time.) On the other hand, when I was in the parking lot, I did not find the whistling complimentary. But a common discussion did arise between myself and my friend:

"Oh, that was totally directed at you."

"Uh, no it wasn't it was for you."

We were confused as to what this random whistling meant to us. Was it good, bad, annoying... What I realized was that this conversation occurred because I knew on some level that I didn't want this attention, and neither did my friend. We have grown up in a world where young women are expected to "appreciate" this kind of attention so why would we not want it? Well for one, it's embarrassing and degrading. In other words, even when I didn't understand the issue, I knew in my gut that these acts made me feel small and less of a person.

So where do we go from here? Do you just flip the bird every time someone harrasses you? Well that could certainly get some results, but it's not going to make things better. It's going to have to come down to parents and mentors teaching our younger members of society to see everyone as equals. To understand that just because you have a thought about someone doesn't mean you can scream it out of a moving vehicle. But it's also about educating our boys around surviving the male dynamic, so they can surpass the pressure of hypersexualism and understand how to see women as equals.

I don't think the group of men in the car were horrible people; just a group of friends who have something to prove, when they really aren't proving anything. (Except, of course, that they can act like a bunch of assholes).

So the next time this happens, which I know it will at some other point in my life, I know it's not something that I have to take lightly. I also understand that I've learnt so much about myself and the world around me, due to all of this research and analysis. CCASA has taught me so much about these issues and where the seeds are planted in society. I know I can't prevent these kinds of men from harassing me, but I know I can influence my friends. Every little bit counts and hopefully one day everyone will see each other as equals, and act like it too.

-KB Continue reading

Beware of the Dark Side...

You know, it's nice to know that we can depend on the media as a whole to keep us entertained with wonderfully inaccurate victim blaming and myth perpetuation. The latest gem comes to us via a National opinion section and its entitled "Dark side of a girls' night out." Before you go asking if the title is a portent of the wonderfully logical information to come, the answer is: "Yes." It is as bad as you think it's going to be. The main article itself is all over the place; at certain points, it's perpetuating myths but it does manage to somewhat redeem itself later on. But each time you think it's finally moving in the right direction, it pulls a 180 with a prevention myth or some victim blaming. Here's one example:

Police say the number of attacks on drunk young women is growing. "They are binge-drinking, make poor choices and can't keep themselves safe," Detective Senior Sergeant Paul Borrell said. "That's a worry and that's the preventable part of it."

Naturally, no mention of the offenders; it probably didn't even cross their minds. The attacks aren't growing because there are more offenders, they are growing because more girls are getting drunk and not following the rules. This is closely followed by:

"It's not this image of a back-alley sex offender. Where any guy takes advantage of an intoxicated woman, that falls under predatory behaviour. "It's up to friends of victims and potential offenders to do something about it. In my view, if something does happen, all of us have failed that person."

There's some offender blaming, but I'm not sure what is meant by "predatory behaviour." Clearly the "back-alley" sex offenders are predators, but there's no predatory behaviour taking place in the clubs; it's not like some guys think of themselves as being "on the prowl," or anything. A more telling contradiction is that the article admits that "most [sexual assaults] happened at the man or woman's home afterwards." But then, later in the article, we're told that "moves were under way to improve lighting in the area." Improved lighting in the streets will help reduce the number of assaults that happen in the home?

At any rate, the article itself would not have been so bad if it was simply going back and forth between myth and fact. But the article concludes with a step so far back that there is really no way it could recover. Earlier in the text, a social worker makes the following statement:

"Why should the whole responsibility for a situation be put on women? The bottom line is we should be able to walk down the street or do anything without the threat of sexual violence."

This question/statement is exactly the kind of thing that we need to see more of out there, but unfortunately any merits gained by this statement are forgotten due to the impact of the section entitled 'Never Thought It'd Happen To Me.' I'll let you read the section yourself, as the impact is better that way, but it concludes with a victim-blaming quote:

But she refuses to let it ruin her life and says she has learnt some valuable lessons. "I've had to learn the hard way. Hopefully other people can learn from experiences like mine."

This article represents two (of many) serious problems that organizations like ours are facing out there. The first problem is that, when it comes to issues of sexual violence, there is still a huge disconnect going on; the language is there, but the logic isn't. This serious disconnect leads to mixed messages and when these mixed messages make it to the media, sexual violence becomes much more complicated than it needs to be (in the eyes of the general public). The second problem that arises out of this article is that the ultimate message is both horrendous and distracting.

Horrendous, because it basically says "look here ladies, here is a good young woman who learned her lesson; be wary of her story and remember to stay in line." Distracting, because sexual violence is not about "women not taking the proper precautions," it's about asshole offenders breaking the law. One of the questions that is not asked enough is, why do we feel the need to manufacture a gray area when it comes to sexual assault? Well, clearly it's just one more part of the blaming game; holding the victim accountable for their actions/"participation." And yet, we don't think or talk like that when it comes to victims of theft, drunk driving, or child exploitation.

So what is it? Why do we treat victims/survivors of sexual assault differently? Continue reading

If I can't see it, it's not there...

The closing of the Second Chance Recovery Methadone Clinic has caused considerable controversy these past few days. After being forced to move three times in the past six years, the clinic has finally been forced to close its doors forever due to hostile opposition from community leaders. I, for one, can certainly see where these supremely rational community leaders are coming from. I mean, it's obvious that Methadone clinics represent a problem in our society. They're a reminder that some people are worse off than we are. It's not fun to be reminded that there are serious problems in our society; our lives are so much better when we don't know what's out there. Removing these kinds of clinics from our communities will completely erase the issue from our world, subsequently unburdening us from having to actually think about it.

This "not in my backyard" and/or "if I can't see it, it's not a problem" mentality is a major reason why serious social issues, like drug addiction and sexual violence, continue to exist in silence. In the case of drug addictions, we have individuals speaking out about how something needs to be done about the drug problem in our city. Yet whenever some solution is proposed, like a methadone clinic (which is a safe, controlled way of beating certain addictions), certain groups do everything they can to see them shut down. Some of the beautifully rational arguments hold that a methadone clinic would bring addicts into their community. It's obviously not possible that there are people in the community who are addicted to certain substances. This mentality is no different when it comes to the issue of sexual violence.

People are more than happy to agree that sexual violence can happen anywhere, but also believe that it is something that doesn't happen in their own communities. The manifestation of this mentality can be seen in the ridiculous victim blaming that goes on. As long as young girls watch their drink, don't wear provocative clothing, and aren't "outgoing" then sexual violence goes away. But if these girls have the audacity to actually do what they want (after all, allowing such behavior would destroy our 1950s utopia, wait minute...what year is it?), then sexual violence ends up being a poignant lesson: step out of line and you'll be sexually assaulted. Three cheers for "civilized" society.

It's far too complicated to hold the offender accountable for their actions because that would require actual thought; discovering why one person would do such a horrible thing to another. Actual analysis of the offender might lead us to a discovery that there is something wrong with society in general and how we are socialized. Can't have that. After all, if we ignore the problem it will go away and, eventually, cease to exist.

How silly it is to have social organizations fighting these serious social problems. The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) people have the right idea; protest any organization working to solve social issues and the issue goes away. How simple. Think this would work for Focus on the Family? Both Canadian and American versions? I mean we could "solve" homosexuality, abortion, and atheism in one fell swoop.

We could take this a step further and walk around with our eyes closed all of the time, thereby solving all of the worlds problems. Wouldn't even have to worry about being hit by traffic; after all if we can't see it, it's not there.

Continue reading

Entitlement

Like most Canadians worried we'd never see an end to the Wafergate scandal, I was relieved to pick up the paper this morning and find it wrapping up to an official impasse. A few pithy remarks from both sides in the commentary, left over from the past few days, summed up the story with a snide dismissal in one corner and an ashamed "headdesk" in the other. The general consensus seems to ponder why little glimpses of PM buffoonery must dominate media coverage perhaps best left for issues of greater relevance.

But I was left pondering other things. Would you believe that it got me considering the power dynamics of entitlement and its contribution to a culture of sexual violence? CCASA's awesomely got me one-tracking it these days - care to follow?

For those not in the know regarding the incident in question:

At the funeral mass for Roméo Leblanc, our Prime Minister allegedly committed a faux paus while taking communion. He took it... and then apparently stuffed the wafer into his pocket instead of eating it.

... I'll let that sink in.

If I can spare a moment to dislodge my tongue from my cheek, I'll try to take the issue at face value, overblown media coverage and kidding aside. Yes, if the accusations are correct, the incident is embarrassing. That our Prime Minister, representing Canada, wouldn't have the wherewithal to particpate competently and respectfully in a religious service shows a little more ignorance than I'm comfortable with. Perhaps because if we can't expect our leaders to treat cultures and belief systems outside of their own with dignity, then what can be expected from the rest of us?

Granted, Harper's suspected poor ettiquette was a relatively minor offense and, if proven to be true, could probably be pinned down to a lack of awareness as opposed to outright maliciousness. But the problem with the type of ignorance that results in unintentional rudeness or disrespect, is that it comes from a place of privilege. If (for the sake of this post) our PM really did decide to shove the wafer into his pocket, one would wonder why he didn't just eat it. What sort of thought proccess would inform a decision to not partake of a ceremony to which you've been invited? What needs of the guest would override the desire to be courteous, but a sense of entitlement of some sort (born perhaps of a certainty of one's superior position under the cicumstances, or even in the world in general).

Well, so what if the guy's privileged and acts accordingly? Is it really such a big deal?

In isolation? No, not really. And in this one particular case, it's hard to really care one way or the other. But in the scheme of things, even if it looks minor sometimes, entitlement can be a pretty significant peice of the greater oppression puzzle.

Entitlement has a close relationship with power (which I will touch upon more in the future), that can show itself in the lack of equality in society. We are treated differently according to our place in the system, and can internalize these ideas to the point where some (the dominant group) feel owed certain things just on account of their own unexamined privilege. They may start to accept belief systems that reinforce the dynamics that give them the upper hand, and they lack the tools to challenge the things that aren't working for everyone collectively, because those things working so well for them.

In modern society where laws strive towards greater equality, sense of entitlement is very much informed by values and beliefs. It's attitudes and social norms that create power dynamics which allow inequity to exist and, where there is inequality, violence is sure to follow.

We've discussed at length how sexual violence is about power and control. I'll go further and state that sexual violence can't happen without the power differentials that exist in our society. In terms of attitudes, I'm referring to racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, transphobia, etc, which are all a part of the many ways marginalized populations are kept away from the public sphere the privileged group occupies with ease. When a person of colour is racially profiled and harrassed; when a woman is treated as a sexual object; when a person with a disability cannot access a public space; when a gay teen is ostracized; when anyone is stereotyped or dehumanized based on the intolerant belief systems of others... These are all peices of the bigger picture; attitudes that allow others to be seen as lesser than. Then, it's a slippery slope towards behaviours that become abuse.

If rape is about offenders taking what they wrongly feel they are entitled to, then the first step towards prevention is eliminating attitudes that foster these types of beliefs.

Having said that, I don't feel as though Stephen Harper's alleged actions at the funeral mass indicate that he's an abuser (just consider him my topical launching pad), or prone to abuse. Having a sense of entitlement, being privileged, or even harbouring beliefs that are decidedly discriminatory doesn't automatically make one a violent offender. But we should take care to ensure that our own attitudes and language don't contribute to a culture of sexual violence.

PS. Stephen? Next time you attend mass, stick your neck out. Like, literally, put it in front of the nearest camera and show Canada how a respectful, courteous leader takes communion. (We need the headlines). Continue reading

Myth Busting

There is a commercial that is floating around TV right now that was put out by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB). It shows a very attractive woman wearing revealing clothing walking in a parkade at night. There just happens to be a "psychopath" wearing the stereotypical hockey mask and holding an axe hiding behind one of the pillars. It is implied that the "psychopath" will jump out and assault the woman. I was not surprised to see an advertisement that plays up the myths around sexual violence, considering these are widely accepted by our society. However, I was surprised and appalled to see that this advertisement was put out by an organization that is designed to help those who are at a disadvantage in our society. One would think that an organization such as this would understand the importance of not perpetuating myths and victimizing individuals/sexes/races etc... This advertisement has been taken down from the web but I managed to get a screen shot of it.
The impact of a 30 second t.v commercial is immense. It can reconfirm and strengthen misconceptions and beliefs that people hold. Challenging, changing and making people question their own beliefs becomes so much harder when so many different mediums are perpetuating and reinforcing myths around sexual violence. This advertisement doesn't just represent one or two myths around the issue of sexual violence but instead almost every myth our society holds. Ultimately, it doesn't just spread partial ignorance around this issue but rather complete ignorance.

To demonstrate how myth based this advertisement really is let me do some mythbusting...

1) The woman in the commercial is your stereotypical " hot blonde." She has the large breasts, tiny waist and the long flowing hair. This plays up the myth that only young, beautiful, sexy women can be sexually assaulted. In reality, anybody is susceptible to sexual violence. This myth is also reinforced by the belief that sexual violence is about sex when, in fact, it is a crime of power and control. It doesn't matter how attractive someone is because it is not about the sexual gratification but rather the sense of being in control and having power over another human being.

2) In the advertisement, the "hot blonde" just happens to be dressed very scantily. She is wearing a belly top that is also very low cut revealing large amounts of cleavage. This is where the "she was asking for it" belief comes in. This boils down to the belief that because she was not dressed modestly, someone else has the right to assault her. What is implied is that had she not been wearing such revealing clothes she probably would not have been in that situation. Once again this stresses the prevention tactics and reinforces the victim blaming mentality. It doesn't matter how much someone has had to drink, how revealing their clothes are, or what profession someone is in; there are no excuses for sexual violence. The perpetrators of sexual violence make choices to assault and no action of the survivor EVER justifies that.

3) It is perfect to set the scene at night in a dark parkade because the majority of society believes that is when and where women are most likely to be sexually assaulted. This is sending the message that if women stay indoors at night and avoid all secluded areas then sexual assaults and stranger attacks can be prevented. This message instills fear in women leaving the house at night and, once again, puts the blame back onto the survivor rather than the ones making the choices to assault. Most sexual assaults occur within the home in broad daylight by someone the survivor knows and may have even trusted. Most often, the sexual assaults don't require large amounts physical force because the perpetrator has already gained the trust and access to the survivor. It is not the stranger attacks in dark secluded areas that are the most common.

4) It is a common belief that sexual assault offenders are easily recognizable. In the case of the CNIB commercial, it is the easily identifiable "psychopath" who is the sex offender. Most sexual assault offenders appear to be normal. They do not suffer from mental illness or personality disorders. Perpetrators are often considered responsible members of the community. Race, economic class or marital status plays no part in determining who is, or who will become an abuser.

Each myth does not stand alone but is supported and fueled by many other misconceptions and beliefs that are common in our society. All the myths surrounding the issue of sexual violence are intertwined and are perpetuated by one another. The only way sexual assault can be prevented is by education and awareness around the issue. This advertisement would not have been created if our society was educated around this issue. Continue reading

Someone says this, then someone says that...

Earth. A place where people can offer all of their opinions and beliefs with a click of a button and can be read all over the world in seconds. So within this entire information overload, we seem to be faced with a rather difficult situation. Do you take everything you read as truth and adapt your beliefs to the writer's thoughts, or do you fight with all your might to delete these digital messages? With all the blogs, forums, and e-mails out there, we have to learn how to dissect and analyze articles before we accept them as truth, because if we blindly agree with a person's position without scrutinizing our own beliefs and the words expressed in the writings, how are we supposed to truly understand the situation and emotions behind them?

So when the issue arrives at sexual violence, why does it seem that there is still so much ignorance and victim blaming swimming around the worldly web? I came across an article that one of CCASA's staff pointed out and was appalled by the sheer ignorance and audacity someone had to not only use real research as a farce, but to create a lie about serious and sensitive topics. The author, Richard Alleyne, took it upon himself to alter existing research to suggest that any women who are drunk, dress promiscuously, or are outgoing are at a higher risk to be sexually assaulted:

"Women who drink alcohol, wear short skirts and are outgoing are more likely to be raped, claim scientists at the University of Leicester.

Psychologists found that all three factors had a baring on whether men would force a woman into having sex.

They found that the skimpier the dress and the more outgoing the woman, the less likely a man was to take no for an answer."

As the article continues, he adds that this "research" has proven that men are more willing to coerce women into sex based on these factors. This article not only misuses research, but it perpetuates the idea that women are simply targets for men.

Even though the responses to the article have already been in full swing (Bioephemera , and Bad Science), it still bothers me to know that this writer from Telegraph was willing to support sexual violence myths to "spice" things up. Personally, I feel that the media today is willing to change elements of a story just to maintain this superficial world of excitement. For that reason alone, I find it hard to truly believe anything I read or hear without some kind of research of my own. This correlates to many experiences I've already had here at CCASA; simply look at our court cases. Had I not been present to actually hear the sentencing and explanations behind each case, I probably would have simply taken the articles from the newspaper as truth and not question the scenarios.

Even though I feel some comfort in the fact that people are standing up to these fictional articles, I still can't help but feel let down that anyone would try to mislead others by perpetuating myths and misinformation. Not only did this journalist claim that any women who drank or wore revealing clothes were more likely to be raped, but he was desperate enough to suggest that scientists were confirming these myths. Tagging these accusations with the seal of science is a pathetic attempt to legitimize his own agenda. We look to science to be rational and factual, so when Alleyne applied the "scientist’s confirm" motto to something that implies that sexual
assault is due to drinking and clothing, I couldn't help but feel frustrated and angry.
Sexual assaults happen because an offender decides that they want power over another human being, have control over them, and use sex as an outlet. They apparently believe they are entitled to whatever they want, no matter what. It's not because of the clothes people wear or how much alcohol people consume. An offender is acting on their own accord, so when people demand public acceptance for an offender's "reasoning" (actually an excuse) for what happened, the easiest way to protect themselves is to push the blame onto others. Those "others" being the survivors.

All I can say in theses situations is how annoyed I am getting, hearing the same excuses and explanations. I'm tired of hearing 'well what did she expect?' or 'you should have watched your drink.' The blame for an assault will always fall on an offender no matter what, and to have someone who calls themselves a journalist, twist facts and lie about sexual violence in a casual way is quite agitating. I can only hope that people look into what they read, and realize that not everything that is written is fact (even if it says, 'claims scientists'.) As a society, we have to begin realizing that sexual violence has been kept in the dark because of these myths and silenced by the offender’s excuses.

-KB Continue reading

Real men hate change...

Every now and then, during my research here at CCASA, the issue of Men's Rights Activists (or MRAs) comes up, and it usually comes up in a negative light. Not wanting to believe that some of my male counterparts could be so short sighted and, well, stupid, I fired up google and began a bit of research. My first little speed bump in this quest for knowledge was rather humorous, as you can see below:


Now, I don't know if google or the universe is trying to tell me something here, but this seems to be a comical manifestation of some of the feelings some men have in these entertaining times. To be perfectly honest, there have been times when I, as a male working in an organization such as CCASA, have felt rather isolated; to a point. The issue of sexual violence in our society has been long thought as a "woman's issue" and that men are, and should be, excluded from the conversation because they are the evil perpetrators. Now, I can see where some men may take what I've said here and go on a long tangent about how men can be abused as well and that the feminist movement is out to "get them." However, if we hold true to our "manly" instinct of rationality, our first reaction should be a little research instead of flying off the handle, labeling feminist organizations as "man hating," while shotgunning a beer, crushing the empty can on our "manly" foreheads, and concluding with a loud "git 'er dun" (shudders, hangs head in shame).

Where was I? Right, manly rationality. A little research into organizations like CCASA would reveal that sexual violence is not solely a "woman's issue" any more; in fact there are many male orientated organizations that approach the issue from a male perspective. Part of the goal most of these organizations have in mind is that men and women need to work together to stop sexual violence because it is an issue that affects everyone. One would think that with the existence of such organizations as White Ribbon, Men Can Stop Rape, and Walk a Mile in Her Shoes that people claiming to be Men's Rights Activists would have a valid opinion to add. Hence my research endeavour.

Not long after I began my research, I stumbled upon a site called Men's Rights Online, a Men's Rights Activist webpage. Preconceptions and predispositions neatly placed to the side, I dove in. Initially I found myself looking at several video's posted by the sites moderator(s) that seem to be in support of MRA philosophy. Desiring a better understanding of the foundation of MRAs, I sought out their written material first. Given a choice between 'Law' and 'Sexism Issues,' I went with the latter hoping it would provide a better understanding of where the MRA movement is coming from. First link under the 'Sexism Issues' topic was Education.

The first thing one finds is a paragraph stating that the education system has been polluted by feminist ideology and has become anti-male. Interested in giving this site every chance to redeem itself, I withheld my judgement and continued. Then came a comment that the reason why females are not prominent in such fields as "engineering, computing and medical" is because they are not dedicated, qualified, or persistent. I noted the premise and continued. But then I was presented with:

"Females employees tend to work at least 3 hours less than their male counterparts, and usually exit the workforce during their 30’s so that they can begin a family. As a result it’s basically impossible for women to support the role of motherhood and an employee within the industrialised, engineering and medical fields."

My rational mind could be suppressed no longer. It seems the writer was hellbent on making so many misogynist statements in a row that the reader could not help but switch their own judgments back on. I felt obligated to suggest that maybe the reason they leave the work place to start a family is because they have been socialized in this patriarchal society to do so. But I guess it's just that "evil" feminist brainwashing kicking in. The article continued by pointing out all the ways in which men are physically different than women; essentially suggesting that the only education system that could work would be a segregated one.

Then came the report crafted by the Illinois Loop Organization that outlines all the problems that males face in the classroom. Now I could go through all 22 points stated by the report but this post would likely end up being a little lengthy, so I'll just address a few of the more interesting points (you are more than welcome to check them out for yourself and comment on your thoughts here).

Point #2 held that "collaborative workgroups, which favour social interaction over personal skills and knowledge" are problematic. Who knew collaborative workgroups don't involve personal skills and knowledge. I can certainly see where they are coming from here; no male I know enjoys socializing with others. I mean it's not like there are any men playing sports or anything. Additionally, I can think of few careers that don't require collaborating with others, even in typically male-dominated industries; it's a useful skill.

Point #4 stated that "emphasis on multiple simultaneous classroom activities...instead of focused, whole-class, engaging instruction" causes problems for males. Yet again they're right on the money with this. I can't count the number of times my male friends complained that these activities were far too distracting and cried for a long, uninterrupted lecture on the subject matter. Then we sat up straight and waited with baited breath for our fathers to tell us how to think next.

Point #8 noted that "assigned literature skewed lopsidedly towards social issues, and away from novels of high adventure, courage, patriotism, etc." Which was followed by a rather contradictory point #9 which suggested that there is an "almost total absence of fact-based biography and non-fiction in literature and reading classes." Apparently social issues are not fact-based or are works of fiction. Or reading about social activists like Martin Luther King, Jr. does not fall under the category of "fact-based biographies." After all, what small child would think of MLK as a hero; all he wanted was equal rights for everyone. Real men don't like equality.

Also, still on this contradictory note, there is a complaint about how it's bad that there is a move away from novels like high adventure, courage, and patriotism (which are themes usually contained within works of fiction) but they complain that the movement away from non-fiction is problematic. Real men don't have to follow logical rules, we're too rational for that.

I could continue listing these lovely points but I think my point has been made that this article was really quite...what's the word...idiotic. Aside from the irrational anti-feminist stance taken, what really annoyed me about this article is how it represents and views males. According to this article we are all mindless machines that follow a strict set of rules and regulations and that changing these rules and regulations renders the male populous incompetent. That males, generally, are incapable of accepting change.


I'd like to think that us males are not the hopeless cliches that this website is making us out to be. Now if you'll excuse me I have some fact-based, non-fiction biographies about courageous adventurers fighting for freedom to get through. Don't talk to me though, I may get distracted...

Continue reading

Personal Life and Work

I was presented with a question by one of my coworkers at CCASA: "What do you do to leave work at work and not take it home with you?" This question was asked after we had returned from court. The trial we were able to sit in on involved a sex trade worker who was nearly beaten to death with a baseball bat by one of her regulars.

Before being asked, I didn't realize I was taking my work home with me. This case in particular has affected me more than usual. I can't seem to pinpoint what it is about this case that makes it stick out in my mind, but I find myself constantly thinking about the situation and wanting to know the answers to all the unanswerable.

Everyone I've spoken with about the case are baffled by how bizarre a situation this really is . This is a man that has a post secondary education and a good career, no criminal record, and he came from a seemingly normal and supportive family. Additionally, there was no evident motive for this man to assault this woman. On the video of his interrogation, the accused said he didn't even know why he did it. The accused had known the survivor for two and a half years and stated that she was a "great girl". He would fly her in to stay the weekend with him, he would take her on vacations to places like Mexico and Hawaii; he always treated her well. In two and a half years, there was no sign that he would/could act like this.

From the video of the perpetrator's interrogation and his demeanor in the courtroom, he seemed like a docile man. He was very emotionless and somewhat dopey. He gave you the impression he was going to fall asleep during the court proceedings; not out of malice or defiance, but rather that was just his personality. What would enrage this man to the extent of beating this woman nearly to death? Not knowing the relationship between the perpetrator and the survivor, and not knowing each individual on a personal level, leaves me drawing my own conclusions as to why he did it. The inability to get the whole reasoning behind his actions puts me in a zone of frustration and guessing.

Seeing the survivor testifying in court, there was something about her that just drew me in. I was able to put a name, face and personality behind the "sex trade worker" label. Hearing her speak made it easier to personalize all the events that happened. Her parents were in the courtroom supporting her as she testified. She came from what seemed like a normal family that loved and supported her even though she was a prostitute. While the survivor was testifying, she was very to the point and showed no emotion. There were so many questions running through my head that I wanted to ask her. It made me want to scrape away all the layers and get to know her on a personal level. I wanted to be able to understand where she was coming from and how she has been able to build up the strength to deal with such a horrific incident.

Coming back to the question my coworker asked me... it made me realize I don't seperate my personal life from my work. Perhaps this case has been able to penetrate itself into my thoughts because of all the unanswered questions; it's up to me to try to fill in all the blanks. Over time, I believe people are able to dissociate their work and their personal lives but, because this is such a new indepth perspective on the issue, it has affected me more. Continue reading

Prevention, the key?

At CCASA, we have taken the time to ask around the web world about what people think about sexual violence. One of the questions in our survey was, "What, if any, tips would you suggest to prevent sexual assault?" Based on the results that were complied, we discovered a rather popular belief. "To prevent sexual assault, you should enroll yourself in a self defense class of some sort." This prevention suggestion didn't surprise me since it was, at one point, one of my own beliefs. I always thought that if I knew how to physically fight off an offender, then I would never have to worry about being assaulted because I would be prepared and skilled enough to defend myself.

After all of CCASA's education and information about sexual violence, I have learned that no matter how strong or skilled you are, sexual assault can still happen. This doesn't mean that taking a self defense course is wrong, but rather it's important to understand that an assault can still occur whether you are trained or not. It seems today there are more prevention tools than there are stereotypical clichés, but this self defense tool seems to be growing on an exponential rate. There are many variations of martial arts in the world; Judo, Boxing, Hapkido, Karate, Fencing... the list goes on. Although there is a new addition to the group; Woman's self defense. Yes, there are now classes where women go to learn how to defend themselves in confrontational situations and learn how to escape. But I have a question for you: Do you think these classes would help if you're assaulted by your best friend who's driving you home after work, or your brother's friend who is staying the night? These are situations where trust is already in place and a person's reaction to an assault can be unpredictable. You wouldn't expect a child to take self defense classes, because adults feel that it is their duty to protect the child; so why do we suggest that if a person doesn't want to be assaulted, they should learn self defense? Is it because they are adults and should hold the responsibility of their own protection, or is it because we hold a belief that self defense will ensure that our loved ones won't get hurt?

According to the Calgary Police Department approximately 76% of all reported sexual assault cases are done by someone the survivor knows. What does this mean? Most assaults are not executed by the "creep in the bushes" and these attacks do not always involve violence or physical conflict. So how can these prevention classes prepare someone if it isn't an encounter where punches and kicks are expected? It is important to know that sexual assault is an assault, but it's even more important to know that it can be an assault that doesn't involve brute force or fighting. This is why, as a society, we have to accept that every time we create a prevention technique, we are pushing the blame on the victims rather than the offenders.

I have another concern about this self defense mentality. How often do we actually encounter (in real life) these confrontational scenarios? Probably not a whole lot. When a person is placed in these situations, society believes in fight or flight. But what people don't consider is "freeze". Sometimes in threatening situations, a human's instinct is to freeze and not fight back. So does this mean that if someone is being sexually assaulted and doesn't physically fight back, this person is responsible for their attacker's actions and the assault itself? NO! Every person on this planet will handle situations in different ways, whether that be fighting back or freezing. It is important to remember that we have to keep the blame where it belongs; on the offender.

Again, I am not stating that self defense is bad (I do Muay Thai kickboxing myself and love it); just that if a person is assaulted, and whether they have self defense or not, we can never put the blame on the survivor. It is an offender's decision to act on this crime, so it's important to let them face the full force of the consequences.

-KB Continue reading

Sympathy for Offenders

So I was sitting in court listening to the proceedings and I found myself thinking of the sentence lengths for sexual assault in Canada. The worst cases of sexual assault, according to Canadian Law, are assigned a term of 5 years (ps. 5 years is the minimum sentence for armed robbery). Part of me feels this might be a little low; in my mind, the "worst" case of sexual assault is any case of sexual assault; the scale should start at "worst." But what makes this whole situation worse is how it's determined how "bad" the sexual assault was and whether or not the offender is a "bad" person. Attend a sentencing for a case of sexual assault, listen to the description of the assault and then watch as the offender is treated like a victim.

Listen to the ridiculous sob story about how this individual was dealt a bad hand in life and they were a victim of extenuating circumstances. Look, I'm not so cold and heartless that I feel we should just give up on anyone who has had one too many bad breaks. People deserve a chance to redeem themselves and they deserve a helping hand when they have fallen. However, there is a big difference between someone who turns to drugs or alcohol and someone who chooses to sexually assault another individual.

If it's not a sob story, you'll get this long tale of how this individual has been an upstanding member of society for many years. The person is liked by friends and family, has achieved many things, has "gained society's respect." You'll hear that this is a really good person who just slipped up and made a mistake, like stubbing a toe. Last time I checked, upstanding members of the community don't sexually assault others. Following this logic, if someone commits sexual assault they are not an upstanding member of the community.

It seems that Canadian Law is afraid of appropriately sentencing individuals who commit sexual assault due to some misguided sense of fairness. I will not feel sympathy for individuals who commit sexual assault, and I find it ridiculous that there is even an issue surrounding sympathy for sexual assault offenders. They have decided to ignore the rights and autonomy of another individual and impose a life sentence on their victims (words a Judge used in a trial we attended recently) and the victims families.

I'm not saying that we, in turn, ignore the rights and autonomy of these offenders and treat them like second class citizens. What I am saying, however, is that 5 years is not appropriate for the worst cases of sexual assault. You'll never get a "fair" system for determining sentences for this particular crime; at least not in a patriarchal society. But what might come close to "fair" might be letting the victim and/or victim's family determine the length of the sentence; they're the ones that have to live with the pain of the sexual assault after all.

Am I out of line here? What are your thoughts? Continue reading

Is consent complicated?

Recently, Alex talked about how black and white sexual assault really is. But what if it isn't?

In conversations around sexual violence, the topic of "gray" consent often comes up. What about, as the recently discussed Herald column suggested, women who wake up with a hangover wondering whether they consented to what took place the night before? What about the "he said/she said" drama of hook-up culture where one party is certain what happened was consensual, while the other begs to differ? In circumstances where the refusal doesn't come through plainly enough, should we really hold the other party accountable for going forward anyway? Isn't it our responsibility to firmly state our boundaries and speak up, clearly and strongly, when we want to say no?

These may appear to be difficult questions without easy answers, but if we reject the notion that rape is an inevitability that we must prepare ourselves for, the answers begin to present themselves as questions of their own. Why should a woman have to wake up from a night of partying, wondering if she was assaulted? Why should sexual violence be written off as dating drama? Why should it be anybody's responsibility to ensure they are not raped?

Of course, this is nothing new; victim-blaming has been around for as long as rape has. But there's something different about the way this dynamic plays into the type of narrative we've adopted to address date rape. In stranger assault, the "why was she [insert behaviour here]..." questions come up, but they're afterthoughts that rarely overshadow our certainty that the offender was in the wrong and needs to be punished. When it comes to the majority of assaults, however - those committed by people known to the survivor - the attack is rarely considered the offender's fault. At best, it's a complicated situation, and at worst, the survivor assumes full responsibility. Sometimes, we even feel bad for the offender who "just didn't know" that what happened was unwanted by the other party. Or something.


We prefer to exist in gray areas when it comes to date rape, asking questions like the ones in the opening paragraphs. But the problem with those types of questions is that they're misdirections, carefully guiding the topic away from some uncomfortable truth we'd rather not deal with. The fact that we may not be able protect ourselves. The reality that something like that could happen to us, or to someone we love. And, for the purpose of this post, the way we tend to play fast and loose with the rules of consent in our culture.

Why is consent so complicated?

I often hear my friends joking about needing a decoder ring or a how-to manual to interpret signals from those they're attracted to and I often feel the same. There are so many rules when it comes to the dating game; much of our time is spent trying to drop hints and pick up on cues. We begin to lack the language to be straightforward about our wants and needs. The other side of this is the inability sometimes to express what we don't want. (I know for me, it's tough to even turn down a date I'm not interested in). Because we rely so much on what's implied and suggested, we start to think the issue of consent must also exist in that realm.

"Consent until proven otherwise" is a popular idea that's emerged from this mentality. It's part of that way of relating to one another that relies less on actual communication and more on testing boundaries. It's walking right in and waiting to be thrown out, instead of knocking first and waiting for an invitation to enter. I suppose there might be something liberating about handing the reigns over to other party in circumstances like these, and letting them take responsibility for whatever may come of it. But the reality is that any so-called control relinquished is artificial, and the cost is too high.

When you take away a person's right to be an equal and active partner in sex, you're not doing them any favours or giving them any power. You're controlling the situation the way you see fit, hoping that things will go your way. Even if this involves respect for another person's right to end things, it has nothing to do with respecting the actual person; it's just trying to win a game, knowing your competitor is allowed to forfeit.

Is this really an acceptable model for human behaviour?

It's not even an acceptable model for consent. We may forget or ignore it, but consent isn't implicit, and it isn't our default setting. It's not something that just exists until taken away; it needs to be freely given. It's not complicated, and it doesn't inhabit a gray area, if you're willing to navigate the murky dating waters with honesty and respect.

It's time to stop looking at date rape as a "miscommunication." "I didn't know" is not a good enough excuse for assaulting someone; neither is "I thought she/he was into it too" or "He/she didn't say no." We all have the responsibility to obtain proper consent that's obvious and real when it comes to initiating any kind of sexual contact. This is far too important an issue to play guessing games.

Always make sure every encounter involves equal, enthusiastic participation on both sides. Acting on your own desires with the expectation that the other party will speak up if it's unwanted makes one a selfish asshole at best, and an abuser at worst. Be congnizant of the power dynamics in your relationships and remember that if the scales are tipped in your favour (ie. reduced reasoning of the other party due to alcohol/substances), it won't be an equal encounter. When in doubt, just don't do it.

And always remember the three rules: Respect yourself, respect your partner, and be safe!
Continue reading

Eye Opening Experience

Our first event of the season on the streets of Calgary was very encouraging but also very eye opening. At CCASA everyone is so knowledgeable, understanding, and willing to talk about the issues of sexual violence, so it was easy to forget that not everyone is as open and willing to talk. Still, I was really eager to get out into the community and talk to the younger generations.

In order to reel people in to do our survey, we needed to be really strategic about our invitation. Since we knew that this issue may be uncomfortable for some or could trigger others, we always mentioned what our survey was about, allowing everyone a chance to back out without feeling any pressure. We needed to make sexual violence comfortable... not that way but rather just okay to talk about.

I was able to grab the attention of this one guy who couldn't have been any older than 20 as he walked by. He was one of the first people I was able to stop with my catch phrase. I handed him the survey and watched the passerbys as he was filling it out. This street was jam packed with people. So crowded, in fact, that it was hard to go anywhere other than with the flow of the mass of people.

After he filled out the survey he looked at me with rage. He was so upset he started yelling so loud that people were looking at what the commotion was. He was angry because the questions we asked about sexual violence were too black and white and should not be asked in public because it would make people feel uncomfortable.

I was in shock. That was the last response I had expected to get. I knew some people would be unwilling to do the survey but this fellow filled out the survey and then got upset. Since that response was completely unexpected, I stood there speechless as he lashed out. I'm not a very quick thinker in stressful situations. As I watched him walk away, all the "I should have said this..." and "I should have said that..." thoughts came rushing in. I was so frustrated with myself that I wasn't able to stand up and say something to this jerk.

His words have stuck with me. The questions were too black and white. The issue of sexual violence is black and white. It is either sexual assault or it is not! There should be no gray area when talking about this issue. Sexual violence should not be talked about in public because it could make people feel uncomfortable. Imagine all the survivors out there of sexual violence living in silence, unable to come forward due to the lack of understanding in our culture. This crime thrives in silence and we need to get people talking about this issue if we ever want to eliminate it from our society.

When I look back at this incident I am very grateful it happened. It was an experience that reinforced why I am so passionate about the issue of sexual violence. It opened my eyes to the mentalities and hostility towards efforts to confront sexual violence that our society has. This experience validated everything we have been working for. Continue reading

Soccer Coach!

Our second sentencing case was quite a shock; it involved a soccer coach and a young player who was 13 years old at the time of the assaults. One of CCASA's PACES workers gave us a brief description of the case and, out of instinct, I envisioned what this soccer coach looked like. I visualized a man in his 40's. He'd have a family with children, and would probably wear an intimidating and eerie face. Well, how wrong I was! The offender was 23 years old (20 when the assaults were committed), enrolled in post secondary schooling, and was a "typical" young man. This was all quite unexpected because, when we were waiting outside the court room, I looked over at the family wondering which one was him. I barely gave him a second glance. So when this young man walked into the convicted booth, I was honestly shocked. I really shouldn't have been, but I was.

Looking back on that whole situation, I realize how the general population has grown a preconceived idea of what an "offender" looks and acts like. This is why it is important to understand that sexual assault can happen to ANYONE, and that ANYONE can be an offender. Never assume that just because someone looks respectable that they could never do such horrible things. This was the lesson that I learned.

Once the court was in session and the judge started reading out the charges, I couldn't help but notice just how many people were on the side of the defendant versus the side of the survivor. The ratio between the two was astounding. If the reporters weren't in the room, it would have been about 7 vs. 18. The support for the offender doubled our own, and I felt extremely small. How could so many people support this man who sexually assaulted a young boy? It was a question that certainly followed me home that night.

So after the judge finished the descriptions and continued onto the sentencing, I was quite certain that justice would be served. What I heard was a load of crap! This judge decided that 1 year of incarceration and 3 years of probation was an appropriate sentence. 1 year! That's it! I swear I could feel the family's sigh of relief. Why did the judge decide this was an appropriate decision? She explained that because this young man had good references from the community, strong family support, and high grades in school his rehabilitation would be successful. I swear my jaw got dislocated.

"Good character?" Seriously? Even after being found guilty, he still maintained his innocence. This only proves that he feels no guilt or remorse for what he has done. How do you go through rehab when you don't think you've done anything wrong?

So let's get the facts down; A 20 year old man took a position of power over children and abused it. He sexually assaulted this young 13 year old boy on several occasions over a period of time. His defense was that the boy's mother wanted a relationship with him so she concocted this whole story. It seems to be a recurring situation in sexual assaults that the offenders try to be the victim, and try to justify their actions. For all of this pain and suffering, he got 1 year. That's not what justice looks like to me! What do you think?

I left the court room disappointed and quite depressed. Why are victims given the crappy hand while offenders get to keep aces up their sleeves? How is this justice? By law, this outcome was "justice served," but I can't accept it as emotional or personal justice. It takes so much courage and strength to come forward and report these crimes and then, on top of that, survivors have to testify against their assailant in court. I can't image how difficult that must be. All I know is that this is still a crime that has little to no consequences which ultimately shows how society has silenced criminal act. It's time for change, and knowledge is the key!

KB Continue reading

Redefining Masculinity - The Journey Continues

The last time I brought up the need to redefine masculinity, I didn't really get into specific details as to why we need to do this. It was mentioned that current views on masculinity have established some harmful 'codes' and 'rules' that encourage certain behaviors. But before attempting to redefine masculinity, we really have to understand what we are dealing with; some of the problems develop because most men don't know what 'masculinity' actually means. To be perfectly honest, I don't even know what it means..

Dictionaries won't be of any help; here's what dictionary.com had to say:

Masculinity: "The quality or condition of being masculine."

Thanks for that. So you know you're a man when you act like a man. The very foundation of what it means to be a man is built on a completely useless and banal statement. Because of this vague definition, it's not surprising that it can be, and has been, twisted into a misogynistic, hate mongering tool for certain individuals who hold sheltered and limited views. So where else can we look for our definition? Movies, media, historical figures? Any one of them might provide us with criteria; we could spend hours carefully crafting a list of "masculine" things that encompass what it means to "be a man."

But guys, do we really want to define our masculinity by some manufactured standard? Do we really want to leave our integrity up to someone else? I, for one, do not look to other men to define my masculinity. A 'man' is what I am, not who I am. I am a person who believes in treating others equally, helping when I can, bettering myself through learning, and standing by my principles. I figure a definition of 'masculinity' that is far less vague is necessary, but before we do that, we should realize that we don't need to follow a set of rules and criteria to be "men." We already are men.

When considering your own perception of what it means to be a man, ask yourself a few things. Do I want to be defined as someone who treats others poorly? Do I want to be defined as someone who thinks of himself as a superior? Do I want to be defined as someone who acts like an idiot towards others? Do I want people to see me as sexist, racist, ableist, ageist, heterosexist, or all of the above? Keep these things in mind next time you're out with your buddies and the conversations tilt a certain way. Continue reading

Please Take Our Survey!

The following survey outlines some of our questions about your ideas and knowledge about sexual violence and healthy sexuality. We welcome an open discussion and will answer any questions. You may respond to the survey in the comments, or email your answers to us.

Survey after the jump.

What year were you born? Gender?


How would you define sexual assault?


Why do you think sexual assault occurs?


What type of person is most likely to commit sexual assault? What type of person is most likely to be sexually assaulted? Can men be sexually assaulted?


How often do you think sexual assault occurs?


What, if any, tips would you suggest to prevent sexual assault?


If a person is drunk while assaulted, do you think he/she is partially to blame?


If a person does not fight back while being sexually assaulted, is it still assault?


How often do you think false accusations of sexual assault are made?
A) Less than 5%
B) 10% - 15%
C) 45% - 60%
D) More than 85%

What kinds of aftereffects do you think a person who has been sexually assaulted might experience? Do you think everybody who has been assaulted will react the same way?



Do you think it’s acceptable for a person to change his/her mind after already consenting to sex?



Do you think a person’s sexual history plays a part in whether she/he is likely to be sexually assaulted?



If your date pays for dinner, would it be fair to say that he/she is entitled to sex in exchange?



Is it harmful for a man not to have sex once he’s become aroused?



What would you consider to be sexual coercion? (e.g. Threats, Bribes, Trickery, Blackmail)



Do you think the media accurately portrays what often happens in cases of sexual violence? Why/Why not?



Are you comfortable discussing topics related to sex with your friends/family? Why or why not? (e.g. sexual health, sexual decision making, sexual boundaries)



Are you comfortable saying ‘no’ to your boyfriend/girlfriend?



What, if any, are your concerns about sexual violence in the community?
__ Safety of women
__ Not being believed
__ Stigma attached to survivors
__ Being alienated from your group (after the assault)
__ Not knowing who to trust
__ Other:


Do you think education around sexual assault and boundaries should be included in Sex Ed curriculum? What would you like to see addressed? Continue reading

Bureaucracy is not on my good list...

Here at CCASA, we've been learning both the social and the judicial side of things surrounding sexual violence. During the past three weeks, our Youth4Change group has had the opportunity to visit the Calgary Court House to witness multiple cases on two separate days. On the first day, we attended two sentencings and a plea session, while the second day consisted of a incest sentencing. While each of the cases were associated with the same crime, the manner in which they were processed and the number of variables involved all changed each outcome. Either way, they all ended with me feeling sick to my stomach. So today it's all about "justice."

Since I moved to Calgary back in 2000, I never had the chance (or opportunity) to end up at the court house and dissect this seemingly mystic place where law and justice collide. I have to tell you, it was quite intimidating for the first couple of minutes but the glorified imagery quickly fades once you know what is happening in the room which loom over you. At first you feel like you're in a airport because of all the security and the TV screen which showed the "departure" times of each session. Once we discovered our room and level we took the magical glass elevators up to the court room. I have never felt so sad and curious in my entire life. It was exciting to be somewhere so new and unknown, but at the same time reality rushes back to you when you remember why you are there. Our attendance is to help support not only the survivor, but the fight against sexual assault in all forms.

I couldn't believe how intimidating the court room was... the silence, the air, the people. It all amounted into something that was cold, lonely, and harsh. It's a room where law is followed and where procedures and loyalty are the top priority. I found myself sitting quietly in the wood pews waiting silently. Suddenly, the side door to the court room opened and a man in a navy blue uniform walked in and took a seat. I felt anger, frustration, disappointment, and a rude case of a reality check. I sat there staring at this man and kept imagining what he had done. Once the judge entered the court room and the lawyers began their presentations I found myself unable to look away from this man's emotionless face. Hearing all of the charges against him made me sick to my stomach. Knowing that he sexually assaulted this woman then choked her, bit her and ultimately beat her to the point of unconsciousness pushed me to a level of frustration I have never felt before.

I could hear my heart pounding in my chest... the anger, bitterness, the pure disgust that I had for this man was instant and unforgettable. After hearing all of the references and statements, I kept looking at him wondering, "How is it you are playing the victim in this situation?" and "What made you think you had the right to do this?" My frustration and anger got the better of me. I knew my face was stuck in a frowning position, but I didn't care and I felt like someone had to be angry at him because no one else was in the court room (except the reporters).

45 minutes passed, and the lawyers keep repeating "In my respectful submission..." I knew then that this man would not be sentenced during this session and it just seemed ridiculous that the court accepted all of these excuses due to the "lack" of evidence and paper work. The court was adjourned until a later date to wait for the results.

We exited the court room and had a seat in the hallway. I felt confused, betrayed and simply pissed off. How could this guy be given rights and protection when he certainly didn't respect this woman he assaulted? We left the court house for a break and I eventually compressed my thoughts and took a deep breath to refocus. I told myself that this is the reason why I was trying to get the CCASA message out there, and why I have always felt that there was injustice in the world.

Later, I learned that the maximum sentence for sexual assault was 5 years; I couldn't believe that all of the talking and paper work would only amount to probably 3 years of incarceration. I keep wondering how it's considered justice when an offender has 3 years of jail and then walks free, but a survivor lives with the memories and has to deal with feelings of guilt, their emotions in general, and the pain of the assault for much longer. I don't see it!

Next post will be part 2 of the court system: Soccer coach vs. Child

Till Later KB Continue reading

Part 3 of the Idiocy of the Article on the Registry!

I am a little late to the party on this one! I just thought I would look at the much discussed column from another perspective. Such an article exemplifies almost every common myth society has with regards to the issue of sexual violence. This peice was strategically written starting and ending with logical and respectable comments hiding the true emotional and uneducated section in the middle. Every sentence contained within the middle section is rooted in myth and a misunderstanding (or perhaps a complete lack thereof) of the definitions of the words used. This sentence, in particular:

"The college student who finds himself up on charges the night after a drunken party because a female partygoer sobered up and decided what happened between them wasn't consensual after all, is not a sex offender whose name should appear in the registry."

Essentially, what it is stating is that women are "floozies" and simply "decide" when to accuse someone of sexual assault as if it were a common pastime. Such a statement is rooted in the myth that women falsely accuse men of sexual assault all the time, when in reality false reporting for sexual assault is no different than that for any other major crime. A simple google search would have told you that!

Not only does this statement undermine women, but it also excuses the behaviors of those who would take advantage of such a situation. Additionally, it provides perpetrators with a preying ground where they won't be held accountable for their actions. Just because such an assault wasn't in a secluded back alley and alcohol was in the mix, doesn't make it any less of an assault.

"The creep who drags a woman passerby into a dark alley and rapes her, however, most definitely is."

It is hard to not laugh when you realize the complete ignorance of the author of this article. Once again, we have a statement that is based on complete myth. Most sexual assaults are committed by someone the survivor/victim knows. Essentially what is being stated is that if this so called "creep" sexually assaults someone they know in a well lit area, it would be less heinous than if they attacked someone they didn't know in a dark alley. We should all know that these "creeps" live in complete isolation with no relations to the so called "non creeps" of society.

"Clear, concise wording should be used, including a return to the use of the word "rape."Rape should not be able to hide behind the facade of sexual assault."

Time warp back to the 1980's when wives could not be raped by their husbands, only women could be victims of rape, and rape didn't include anything other than intercourse. Before Bill C-127 was passed, the rights of everyone were taken away regarding the use of the word "rape." Women could be forced to do sexual acts that did not involve intercourse and men simply could not be sexually assault.

"The rapist belongs in the registry, the teen who gropes a girl on a dare or the aforementioned intoxicated partygoer does not."

The most bothersome part of this statement is the fact that the writer is condoning sexual violence if it was done as part of a "dare." If someone was dared to go poke somebody's eye out and did so, would that not be considered assault? Then why is it any different when it involves sexual contact? It is really troublesome to think that people in our society still see nothing wrong with such behaviour. The humiliation, embarrassment and emotional impact on the survivor of such an immature act is completely disregarded.

This article articulates almost every myth around the issue of sexual violence. A couple minutes of research would have shown the author that! Continue reading

I'll see your innuendo, and raise you a...

This Calgary Herald column, discussing the language surrounding sexual violence in laws pertaining to sex offender registry, was brought to my attention today.

I agree; it is absolutely necessary to be mindful of our words when discussing the issue. With the innuendo that inevitably crops up upon entering uncomfortable territory, it's all too easy to follow the language to a safer, more removed area. A place where we can minimize or equivocate to our heart's content without a moment's reflection on the many, many voices and experiences dismissed and voided in the process. Enough tone and distance, and one might even have trouble identifying sexual assault at all. To wit:

"The college student who finds himself up on charges the night after a drunken party because a female partygoer sobered up and decided what happened between them wasn't consensual after all, is not a sex offender whose name should appear in the registry."

Apparently, you're not a real sex offender if you have the right dictionary (survivor; see also: "blaming"), and a copy of Rape Myths Mad Libs. I'd drink to that, but then I'd have to change my mind after I sobered up.

Contact the Herald and let them know (with "precise wording") what you think about the importance of language.

(Also, check out Joseph's detailed post for more analysis and less knee-jerk sarcasm) Continue reading

Clear and concise

I recently encountered a rather unfortunate article that showed up in the editorial section of Friday's Calgary Herald. It is discussing the recent changes being made to the sex offender registry that should make the system more effective. If not for the poorly written, incoherent, and offensive middle portion of the article, one would be inclined to agree and respect the writer's opinion. The writer voices a concern for the scope of the "sexual assault" charge and feels that it is too wide of a term; under different circumstances this is a valid concern.

Instead of stating some logical premises that would support this concern we are presented with:

"The college student who finds himself up on charges the night after a drunken party because a female partygoer sobered up and decided what happened between them wasn't consensual after all, is not a sex offender whose name should appear in the registry. "

Essentially this is telling us that the writer doesn't feel that sexual assault that occurs at parties, even when facilitated by drugs or alcohol, qualifies as sexual assault. Then we are provided with:

"The creep who drags a woman passerby into a dark alley and rapes her, however, most definitely is. "

The unfortunate reality that this author does not seem to be aware of is that the majority of sexual assaults are not committed by the stranger; a quick glance at the statistics tells you that the majority of sexual assault survivors knew their assailant. If one does not know the facts, it’s best not to publicly admit it.

The author continues his article by calling for clearer wording:

"Clear, concise wording should be used, including a return to the use of the word "rape." Rape should not be able to hide behind the facade of sexual assault."

First of all, clear and concise wording already exists for the crime of sexual assault; it began with the redefinition of the crime back in 1983. The use of the word "rape" was removed because it only involved one kind of sexual assault. It did not include instances of same-sex sexual assault, sexual assault within a marriage, and sexual assault with objects. The definition before 1983 was not clear and concise as the criteria for sexual assault was limited and only applied to certain rare cases. The redefinition outlined and recognized many more instances of what is considered to be sexual assault. Secondly, I am unsure as to how rape hides behind the facade of sexual assault. Rape is sexual assault and is included in the legal definition of "sexual assault" along with other instances of sexual assault.

The article continues along:

"There are many kinds of sex assaults and not all of them equate to the most heinous."

There are many kinds of sexual assault and they are clearly defined, as I said. But what is being suggested by the author here is that some instances of sexual assault are not so bad when compared to the "more heinous."

Then to top off the idiocy, we are left with:

"The rapist belongs in the registry, the teen who gropes a girl on a dare or the aforementioned intoxicated partygoer does not."

Essentially the author implies that groping girls is no biggie if it's on a dare (and one wonders if that's supposed to be because boys are uncontrollable hormone bombs), and that sexual assault facilitated by drugs is not sexual assault. To sum up, we'll break the author’s statements into some nice logical premises:

1) Clear and concise wording needed
2) "Sexual Assault" too broad, many kinds, some worse than others
3) "Rape" is a more appropriate term
4) "Rape" does not happen at parties when there are intoxicated "participants"
5) "Rape" only happens to women (re: "the creep who...")

One final thought: It is easy to understand that a person who does not know the definition of "sexual assault" or the definition of "rape" would be confused and call for clear and concise wording. However, a little research would provide the author with a few of the sought after answers, which would likely lead to a more professional and intelligent article. But who wants that... Continue reading

The "F" Word and other labels

On Friday, I came to work determined to lock down some key messages for changing attitudes around sexual violence and left thinking about identity. It was a recurring theme throughout the course of the day as we organized our ideas and thought about how we wanted to express them. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? How does the way we define ourselves determine how we treat others? We just couldn't get away from the power of identity, and I've been pondering mine ever since.

Mostly, I've been thinking about the F word (no, not that one). Feminist. How it’s become what I'm known for in my social circles and what it means to exist within that label. Of course, it's a term I readily embrace, but it also allows others to read their own interpretations into my identity. Their understanding of me becomes based on that word and what it means to them, instead of who I really am and what it means to me.

The funny thing is that when I first fell in love with the principles of feminism, it wasn’t because I was looking for a label. It was because it gave me a framework with which to articulate what I’d thought and understood long before I had the language to pin it down. I've always felt what it means to be a woman in society at odds with who I really am; I can't fit into that box and, more importantly, I don't want to.

So, it was liberating to be able to take all these things inside of me out to examine in a greater context, and know that so much of it was a universal experience. It was comforting to realize that I was allowed to value women, to value myself, instead of constantly undermining, and competing, and failing to live up to impossible expectations (or failing to remain within the limitations placed upon me). And once I had the tools to value myself, I began to learn to value others.

That's what brought me to CCASA. Feminism and my understanding of it to be a force for change and social justice. Recognizing that wanting equality as a woman means embracing equality across the board, regardless of race, religion, or sexual identity/orientation. Knowing that violence exists on a continuum that begins with seeings others as inferior. Having that knowledge is where it all began.

So that’s one label, and one story behind it; a part of my identity, but not even close to the whole picture. The important thing is that I get to decide how I define myself, what these labels mean to me, and I recognize that the first step towards respecting others is to let them do the same for themselves. To listen to their stories, to let them tell me who they are, so I can understand the person behind the label. And to keep listening and learning until we all get to a place where we don’t need labels at all. Continue reading