• • News Flash

  The vagina with teeth

  April 11, 2007 • Zoe Cormier

  So we’ve had a lot of fun in the past debating the merits of pink tasers, pepper spray, and a good old fashioned kick in the balls as rape deterrents.

  Now a South African inventor, Sonette Ehlers, has given us another way to exact revenge upon our assaulters: Rapex, the toothed condom.

  

  It’s a bit like a female condom - except the inside is lined with 25 sharp spikes that latch onto any penis that attempts penetration. Not only will it hurt the rapist probably worse than anything he’s ever felt in his life - he won’t be able to get it off without an embarrassing (and incriminating) visit to the hospital. And better yet, it should only cost around 20 cents.

  According to this South African news piece:

  “The United Nations says South Africa has the world’s highest per capita rate of reported rapes - 119 per 100,000 people. Analysts say the total, including unreported rapes, could be nine times higher.

  Ms Ehlers sees her invention as particularly attractive to poorer black women, because they often walk long distances through unsafe areas to and from work. She foresees women inserting the device as part of a daily security routine.”

  Already the device has drawn criticism. First, because it doesn’t stop the rapist from hurting you in any other way (and will most certainly make him angrier and more violent). And second, for putting the onus on women to prevent rape (as opposed to society at large, and men in particular).

  The first criticism is valid.

  But my response to the second? PSHT. Please. The onus has been on women to protect themselves for a hundred thousand years, and things show little sign of changing. Why wait for the world to change when you can walk around with an iron maiden between your legs?

• • Media Savvy
  • News Flash

  WARNING: Feminism gives you cancer!

  March 30, 2007 • Zoe Cormier

  I haven’t seen any mention of it in the Canadian media, but here in the UK (where I am now based) the media have picked up on a study out of Sweden that found a link between gender equality and health - mainly that couples who have an equal partnership (ie tend to earn the same income and share household chores) are more likely to suffer poor health and disability. And the media’s spin on the study is both laughable and sickening.

  Take this article from The Daily Mail - written by a woman, no less (I’m sure the editors wanted to make the piece more palatable to the public) - entitled, “Why feminism ‘could be bad for your health’”:

  “For years, feminists have fought for equality, believing it is the key to a better society. Now researchers have found that parity between the sexes may be bad for your health. A study in Sweden, arguably one of the most egalitarian countries in the world, discovered that men and women who are equal are more likely to suffer illness or disability. Those who earn the same are also more likely to become unwell or suffer a disability.”

  Man. Can you smell that? It smells like bullshit.

  What we have here ladies is a classic case of correlation, not causation. It is probably statistically true that couples in equal income households have higher rates of illness and disability. The reason is simple: people with higher paying jobs - like educated, self-sufficient, self-respecting feminists - tend to work harder, sleep less and have higher levels of stress and anxiety - all bad for your health. This is a pretty simple relationship to understand - but sometimes folks at the printer’s press just can’t help themselves from vilifying feminists.

  This certainly isn’t the first time feminism has been wrongfully convicted for a crime it did not commit. Feminism has also been cited as a cause of breast cancer, because ‘feminists’ (I’m using the term loosely to refer to working women of all stripes) have higher rates of breast cancer than traditional stay-at-home moms. Again, the reason is simple: working women choose to delay having children until they are older, which is known to increase your risk of developing breast cancer (conversely, having children younger lowers it - it’s purely biological). Similarly, anti-abortion activists often claim that abortions cause breast cancer. Again, it’s a case of correlation, not causation - women who choose to have abortions and delay (or abstain from) having kids have higher rates of breast cancer. Abortions don’t cause breast cancer and neither does feminism.

  So be wary of people who misconstrue the meaning of science and statistics to further their agendas, ladies. The world is rife with bullshit, and you have to keep your eyes peeled - lest you step right in it.

  For a fantastic piece that describes how the media reported on this Swedish study, and which outlines some of the outrageous attacks on feminism in the last fifty years, check out this piece in The Guardian by British writer Zoe Williams. I highly recommend you read it - she’s funny and no-nonsense (just what I like in a feminist). Here’s an excerpt I find particularly funny:

  “So, there you have it. Feminism causes cancer. According to American journalist, Naomi Schaefer Riley, it also makes you more likely to be raped and murdered because feminists go out in the evenings and drink more than we should. (And, laughably, we think that whatever we wear and wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no. Idiots.)” Brava!

• • Body Politics
  • In My Opinion...
  • News Flash

  Shameless on the streets

  January 24, 2007 • Zoe Cormier

  We’ve heard a lot about prostitutes lately. What with the recent hunt for a serial killer in Ipswich, England, and now with Pickton‘s trial starting in BC, we’re certainly going to hear a lot more about them.

  Theres one thing that I’ve always puzzled over, as a feminist and as a sexual being: is prostitution a form of exploitation? Is a woman who accepts money for sex just another victim of our male-dominated society? Or is the world’s “oldest profession” just another way for a business-savvy woman to make a quick buck?

  First, let me say there’s no question that prostitution should be fully legal, and that it needs to be taken out of the shadows and into the sunlight. Sex workers should not have to live in fear of their clients or of their pimps (indeed, there should be no pimps at all). The exchange of money for sex is clearly never going to go away, and we ought learn how to deal with it, before thirty other women disappear from Vancouvers east side.

  But still the question begs to be asked: is there something inherently wrong with prostitution?

  (more inside…)

• • In My Opinion...

  Women in Comedy

  January 11, 2007 • Zoe Cormier

  I’ve been mulling over how to write this post for days, and I just can’t find a way to express my feelings with any eloquence. I’m just that irritated. OK, not irritated. Pissed off.

  I have been meaning for months and months to think of a way to write a piece about women in comedy. It has always really bothered me that people laugh more easily at the things that men say than the things that women say. And men have a much easier time making women laugh than vice versa.

  This angers me so much, in such a deep place, and I find it so hard to explain why.

  Laughing at something somebody says seems to me to imply a kind of equality - like you and the comedian are in on something together. The fact that men don’t laugh easily at the things women say seriously upsets me - and I actually find it disturbing when apparently modern and enlightened men don’t laugh at a woman’s jokes.

  Have you ever noticed that female comedians tend to take one of three personas? The Ditz (e.g. Rita Rudner), The Crone (Phyllis Diller), or The Slut (Sandra Bernhard) - each has some character flaw that allows us to look down on them (stupidity, ugliness, or promiscuity). Even somebody as seemingly ball-busting as Sarah Silverman has a bit of a ditzy veneer. Its clearly ironic, we know she’s actually very clever (that’s why we’re laughing, right?), but its like we’re supposed to find it easier to laugh at the things she says if she pretends to be a bit spacey. As if its funnier if it seems like she doesn’t get her own jokes.

  Now, don’t get me wrong - all these women make me laugh my ass off, and usually so much more because of the part they play. And there are obviously other personas for women to have. (Although I might argue that each is tinged with one of these personas: Ellen Degeneres? Bit ditzy. Rosie O’Donnell? Bit crony.)

  But why is it so much harder for a woman to just do it straight? Why is the loudmouth, “I tell it like it is, this is me whether you like it or not” role - a la Chris Rock or Dennis Leary - so much harder for a woman?

  Well, before I could think of a really clever way to voice my thoughts, a thoroughly disgusting piece found its way into Vanity Fair.

  (more inside…)

• • News Flash

  Pink tasers for sale

  January 10, 2007 • Zoe Cormier

  Seeing as how there’s been a lot of Shameless blogging about tasers, and about the colour pink, I figured you might all want to know that come April 2007 for a mere $300 we will all be able to buy personal 50,000 volt tasers in a range of colours - including pink.

  I’m sorry, but I’ve got to admit this: I’ve wanted to own my own taser for many years now, since a friend advised, “absolutely nobody will mess with you if you’ve got a taser.”

  See, I’m utterly terrified of being sexually assaulted. I never have been, but so, so many of my friends have been raped. It’s truly sad that I consider myself “one of the lucky ones” because I haven’t been violated. And it’s truly sad that I now fear every single strange man I see. I have no prejudices - I don’t care what race you are, how old you are, whether you look poor or rich, healthy or sick - if you are a man on the streets late at night and I don’t know you, I fear you.

  So although the pacifist/hippy in me is utterly opposed to the sale of these horrible things, the vengeful woman in me actually got a wee bit excited when I saw this piece of news. I would love nothing more than to take a sparkly pink taser to the testicles of every single scumbag rapist out there who got away with it (which is almost all of them).

• • News Flash

  Don’t cha?

  January 9, 2007 • Zoe Cormier

  Has anyone else noticed that the new volume of Women & Song has a track by the Pussycat Dolls on it? Anybody else annoyed?

  Not that I was attached to the series… or ever owned any of the other nine compilations. If I like an artist I’ll just get their cd. And I like a woman with a bit more spitfire and sass then you tend to find on these things (please see Amos, Tori and Elliot, Missy). But I could swear that when this series started it was about real female musicians - and not troops of highly skilled pole dancers that pretend to sing. (OK, one of them sings.)

  The Pussycat Dolls? Honestly. If they don’t want us to think all the decisions are made by fat old men with cigars who love nothing better than to think of new ways to exploit women for profit, they shouldn’t act like it.

• • Body Politics
  • News Flash

  Another reason not to smoke

  October 29, 2006 • Zoe Cormier

  I’ll refrain from turning into a collective mum here and start nagging everyone about smoking - we all know by now that it’s one of the dumbest things you can do.

  But I do want to draw everyone’s attention to this new study , which shows that not only do teen girls seem to smoke at a much higher rate than teen boys, smoking does not appear to have any effect on their weight. It does appear to have an effect on the weight of boys - but that seems to be because boys experience their growth spurts much later than girls do, so smoking in their teens can have a much greater impact on their growth and height.

  A widely-held belief goes that smoking keeps the appetite down, and therefore women who smoke have an easier time keeping the pounds off. So many women apparently are reluctant to kick the habit, prefering to poison their lungs rather than thicken their thighs.

  But this study says there’s no basis for that belief, and our misconceptions about smoking and weight could be doing us a lot of harm.

• • News Flash

  Girls don’t suck at math

  October 29, 2006 • Zoe Cormier

  Hope you guys all heard about this study debunking the idea that boys are inherently better at math than girls. Basically, they gave a bunch of women a math test each group was required to read a little essay before writing the test. Those who read an essay about how women are inferior at math because of their genes didnt do well on the test. Those who read an essay telling them their gender was irrelevant to the test did well. And heres the really interesting part: women who were simply reminded of their gender didnt do as well as those told gender played no part in math ability.

  This isnt the first study of its kind many have shown that female performance on math tests varies with what you tell them about women and math beforehand. One classic study gave a math test to Asian women. Those reminded they were women did poorly and those reminded that they were Asian did well. (Obviously the reminder made them think of the Asians are good at math stereotype.)

  The general scientific thinking is usually that men are slightly better at visual and spatial tests (which includes things involving numbers) and women are slightly better at linguistic tests. I admit, Ive always had a tiny bit of sympathy for this idea (erroneous as it might be). Although I dont suck at math, I really hate it and I love words and writing.

  But then youve got to think about how women might appear to be worse at math because of cultural norms all sorts of studies have shown that girls get less time and attention in math classes from their teachers. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: people dont think girls are good at math, so teachers dont give them the attention and time they need in school, so their math skills suffer, they grow up to have little confidence or enjoyment in math, and then we all think women really do suck at math.

  So it’s always great to see studies like this, that reinforce the idea that women can intellectually stand toe-to-toe with men on any subject.

• • Body Politics
  • In My Opinion...
  • News Flash

  To veil or not to veil?

  October 28, 2006 • Zoe Cormier

  Seeing as how everyone seems to be in the mood for some good old-fashioned political debate this weekend, I figure its time the veil controversy is mentioned on our blog.

  Im sure youre all familiar with the latest events in Europe in particular, a young Mulsim teaching assistant dismissed from her job in the UK because she refused to remove her veil. UK House of Commons leader Jack Straw said he prefers it when women in his district remove their veils when they speak with him, and Tony Blair called the veil a mark of separation.

  Generally when debates like these rage, I tend to defend rights of freedom of expression. I just dont think she should be forced to cross the boundaries of her beliefs against her will just because she doesn’t see the world the way we do.

  But that line of thinking only takes me so far on an issue like female genital circumcision, cultural sensitivity doesnt mean jack to me, I dont think that kind of brutal assault on a womans body (anyones body ) should be tolerated in Canada.

  And when it comes to the veil I cant deny that theres something about it that makes me so uncomfortable. But I dont think it has anything to do with the veil supposedly being a ‘symbol of foreignness’ or that it signifies a ‘rejection of western values.’ I just dont like not being able to see who Im talking to. When Id chat with girls wearing the niqab in my classes in university, it just felt so strange to not be able to see their faces.

  I think my discomfort really just stems from my feelings about women in society any society being held to a different standard than men. Im talking about all sorts of demeaning and humiliating norms for women from the drunk freshman marching in wet T shirt contests, to the little old ladies dressed in black toiling with bad backs while their husbands sit around drinking coffee all day, to the young women who’s faces Ill never see because theyre hidden under a veil. And its important to remember that theres heated debate in the Muslim community about what the Quran really prescribes in terms of dress for women.

  But although I dont like the idea of the veil, I respect womens right to wear it. I admit, however, I laughed heartily when one of my friends cracked: They should have the right to do what their told.

  I want to know what our readers think of the veil debate, and about Swedens controversial integration and equality minister, Nyamko Sabuni (a Muslim woman) who has said that girls under 15 should be banned from wearing the veil, as they are below the legal age of consent. Im inclined towards her idea; I wonder if many young girls who dont want to don the veil, but do so under threat of punishment, might be glad of such a law. But Im neither Muslim, nor a teenager, and I fully admit that I cant understand what its like to be both at the same time.

  What do you guys think?
  

• • Body Politics
  • News Flash

  Stomach stapling for your sweet sixteen

  October 10, 2006 • Zoe Cormier

  Theres an interesting article (more inside…)

Contents copyright © 2004-2012 Shameless Magazine.
Questions? Comments? Contact us.