The relatively recent development of the anti-bullying campaign has been almost universally accepted as something that is unquestionably “good”. These campaigns are politically correct, they are focused on kids (a largely unhateable group), and they are relatively easy to get behind for most people, (with the exception of some religious groups) particularly those who consider themselves to be open-minded, liberal folks.

Support for these campaigns has surged in popularity with celebrity endorsements and the almost immediate, enthusiastic incorporation of anti-bullying discourse into elementary and high schools. Projects like Dan Savage’s It Gets Better, aimed at inspiring hope in alienated and harassed LGBT kids, are hard to criticize, particularly in light of stats around the increased likelyhood of suicide attempts by these youth. But while anti-bullying campaigns grow ever more popular and schools rush to adopt anti-bullying training for teachers and parents, put on anti-bullying events and create anti-bullying programs and policies, generally patting themselves on their backs for implementing these progressive measures, the elephant in the room grows ever more visible.

That elephant is, of course, girls and women.

While incorporating words like homophobia, gender, ethnicity, or the favorite, diversity, into schools’ plans to “tackl[e] the bullying problem,” seems easy for school boards, the media, and the public to swallow, that uncomfortable word, women, remains distinctly absent from the conversation.

We seem able to talk about a number of different ways people can be bullied or harassed in schools, focusing largely on issues such as sexual orientation and gender identity, without addressing sexual harassment or without naming women and girls as a specific target. Sexism starts early. It starts in the classroom. And yet all we can manage to rally around is the neutral “bullying.” Why?

Stopbullying.gov says that bullying can take many shapes and forms and isn’t limited by age, gender, or education level…But can it happen because of sexism? Meh. Who knows!

While we are, apparently, becoming comfortable with language around “challenging homophobic bullying” and “celebrating difference,” our understanding of the ways in which young men learn to view and treat women, which begins very early on, is left, distinctly, off the table.

Explaining to kids that calling someone a “fag” or using the word “gay” in a derogatory sense is happening, which is good. Part of what is missing, though, is the recognition that, generally, boys are called “gay” because they act too much “like girls.” Because yes, being a girl is still a bad thing.

When Lady Gaga got on board with anti-bullying campaigns in school, she said, as part of her message: “It is important that we push the boundaries of love and acceptance. It is important that we spread tolerance and equality for all students…I am going to be working as hard as I can to make bullying a hate crime.”

And sure, that’s a pretty good message. Not much to argue with there. Certainly no one believes that anyone else should be harassed because they fail to conform to universal standards of masculinity (Lady Gaga, in the video, is addressing Jacques St Pierre, who “was bullied in elementary school by students who called him a fag for being interested in theatre and drama“) But let’s think about what it is that it means to be a man. What it means to be masculine, as far as avoiding being called a “fag” goes, anyway. It means, not-like-a-woman. It means being tough, unemotional, often athletic (i.e. not into theatre) or physically strong, sometimes it means being violent or aggressive, and often, of course, we understand masculinity in terms of how a man views and treats women. In order to avoid harassment, as a boy, you must be sure to “pass” as adequately masculine. In order to be adequately masculine, you must not only be clearly not-like-a-girl, but you must see women as ‘less than’ while simultaneously trying to fuck them. Being fucked by a man means you are less than. As man, if you enjoy or desire to be fucked by another man, it means you aren’t adequately masculine. And that feminization that comes along with being fucked by men makes you deserving of harassment. This isn’t, of course, the only issue at play when it comes to homophobia, but it certainly is one of them.

In light of the recent sexual harassment claims which have come out around the RCMP, wherein Cpl. Catherine Galliford detailed the years of harassment that eventually led her to take medical leave on account of the stress and emotional toll this treatment had taken on her, one would think a light would have gone off in someone’s head.

“Hey!” One might think. “I wonder when this kind of behaviour starts?” “I wonder how men learn to treat women like sex objects?” “I wonder if there’s any way we could curb this behaviour before it becomes completely normalized?”

Galliford’s experience was not an anomoly. Other women have since come out about the harassment they experienced in the RCMP as well. From men planting pornography in a female co-worker’s desk to propositioning to inappropriate touching, it’s clear that this kind of behaviour, on the parts of men, is both common and acceptable.

But how seriously does the state take sexual harassment? And how willing are we, as a society, to actually address the issue? It feels a little bit awkward to witness the immediate and eager embrace of anti-bullying campaigns while sexual harassment and sexism remain so common, so destructive, so acceptable, and yet, relatively, unaddressed.

For me, the experience of sexual harassment was introduced to me when I was about 11. I remember, very specifically, meeting with a teacher, along with several other Grade 6 girls, because the boys in our class had taken to making comments about our prepubescent (or non-existant) breasts. And while I believe the behaviour was addressed with the individual boys who were doing the harassing, there was never any kind of discussion around sexism or sexual harassment as part of any program or curriculum in all my years at school. For the rest of the boys, for those who aren’t called out by individuals early on (or who don’t have feminist parents), I imagine that sexual harassment just becomes part of the routine of presenting as masculine.

So I was in Grade 6 in about 1991. I imagine this kind of behaviour and sexual harassment has been experienced by many, many girls before me and continues to be a common experience today. Boys learn very early on what girls are for and they learn very early on how men should treat women, in order to be adequately masculine and to be accepted by their peer group.

And yet, as pointed out by a friend who is currently completing a PhD in Education, the concept of sexism and the issue of sexual harrassment remains non-existant in both elementary and high school curriculums. Is it really a mystery that men grow up to sexually harass women on the streets, in the workplace, in bars, and, generally, anywhere a woman might be, when they are never taught that this behaviour won’t be tolerated?

While we all seem to be madly in love with the idea of anti-bullying campaigns and have managed, very, very quickly to start creating programs across North America to address the issue of bullying in schools, we have yet, in all the years of sexism and sexual harassment (never mind rape and assault) that has existed from very early on in schools, to address the issue of patriarchy. We have yet to make a concerted effort to address the ways in which boys learn to treat women as objects that don’t deserve their respect, in school. We seem talk a lot about equality without mentioning the word sexism. We seem able to talk about gender without mentioning the word woman. And we talk a lot about harassment without mentioning the fact that both bullying and harassment are things that women experience, on a fairly constant basis, from the time they are very young. Simply because they are girls in a man’s world.

When we say “gender” today, what we mean is “gender expression” or “gender identity.” It has become a very neutral term and it has become a way for the state and the law to avoid naming “women” as a target. As far as anti-bullying campaigns go, girls are not named as a specific target even though “gender” and “equality” are common terms within this discourse. And while it is good that we are addressing this idea that boys need not fit into this perscribed role of “masculinity,” we seem to be completely afraid to address why that is and what the consequences of a system that views masculinty as ‘good’, simply because it isn’t ‘femininty’ are for women in that culture.

Within the neutrality of the way in which “gender” is used in anti-bullying campaigns and in the distinct absence of a focus on sexual harassment, and an absence of words like “sexism” or “patriarchy,” anti-bullying campaigns appear to remain safely designated for boys.

Originally posted on www.lacles.org: La Concertation des luttes contre l’exploitation sexuelle (CLES).  CLES is a coalition of organizations and individuals operating out of Quebec, who are critical of the sex industry. This letter was reposted with permission.

Letter to the Feminist Movement

Originally circulated in French on June 23, 2011

In the wake of a series of targeted attacks–sometimes subtle, other times blatant–aimed at abolitionist feminists, we call on you, as members of the feminist movement in Québec, to react.

Abolitionist feminists address the fundamentally patriarchal but also racist, capitalist and colonialist nature of the institution of prostitution. The purpose of their political education, prevention and intervention work is to equip feminists with information and tools to enable them to argue that the sex industry is illegitimate and must be eradicated. They also seek to ensure that women have the right to extricate themselves from the exploitative conditions inherent to this industry. They work with women who are or were in the sex industry to organize, pool experiences and act for social transformation. They know that all feminists do not agree with their analysis. But they demand the right to exist, think and work from this perspective.

Abolitionist feminists are publicly denigrated, and, in diverse settings such as universities (including professors) and the social media (individuals’ and group Facebook pages, blogs, websites), are characterized as: “moralizing Christians; old, fat and ugly women who have nothing to do; crazies; sluts and Nazis.” Activities addressing young audiences that are designed to publicize resources for preventing young people from entering into prostitution are criticized, even though these resources are aimed at women who could benefit from these same prevention resources. Ads or announcements about helping services for women who are being sexually exploited in the sex industry are boycotted. Abolitionist feminists are explicitly combatting male violence, yet they are told they are “endangering women in prostitution,” and–the ultimate insult–that they are “committing violence against women in prostitution!”

Feminists who take the risk of naming and denouncing men’s violence, and feminists who have endured the violence of thousands of men in prostitution for periods of 10, 20, even 30 years or more–sometimes from the age of 2–are accused of committing violence against other women. Regardless of our past or our experience as feminists, we believe that it is always, and has always been, unacceptable to tolerate feminists’ use of tactics designed to silence other feminists, even when we are in disagreement. Yet, that is exactly what is happening right now.

These strategies are unbefitting a movement that seeks collective debate and thinking that will lead to new actions and an enhanced feminist practice. It is unacceptable to say that abolitionist feminists are committing violence against women in prostitution. It is even more unacceptable when it is directed against feminists who have a past experience of prostitution! The purpose of these tactics is to silence women and it also means that some women, especially feminists, are reluctant to take a position because they don’t want to be caught up in this pressure cooker. The same tactics also prevent women in prostitution from having access to another perspective and other choices. Of course, abolitionist feminists have no intention of shutting up.

In fact, for the last 20 years in Québec, it has been very difficult to find space in which to present abolitionist feminist analysis. Some women object that abolitionist feminists are too radical or “aggressive” in defending their ideas. Others think that the debate is too emotional and don’t want to have to take a position for various reasons: fear of conflict and possible divisions in their group and/or the movement, fear of not respecting women with past experience of prostitution, etc. Even though abolitionist feminists deplore this situation and hope, through their actions, to enable increasing numbers of women to understand that abolitionist feminist analysis is most consistent with their principles of liberty, equality and solidarity, they respect the right of individual women and groups to arrive at their own position.

As signatories, we would nevertheless like feminists to exhibit feminist solidarity by opposing the tactics of denigration and boycotting. We reiterate our respect for the fact that some feminists do not share the analysis of feminist abolitionists. But to call abolitionist feminists names, to “study” them as a phenomenon of violence against women, and to call for a boycott of groups like the Concertation des luttes contre l’exploitation sexuelle on the pretext that abolitionist feminists are a danger to women far exceeds the threshold of fair and reasoned debate.

The feminist movement is not homogeneous in its thinking, priorities or actions. But unlike any other subject that could ostensibly divide us as a feminist movement, prostitution seems to elicit an enormous reaction on one side and devastating silence on the other.

This is why we are calling on you today to help put an end to these tactics so that we can debate freely. This is particularly important in the context of the Estates General of Feminism process. We are asking you to refuse to tolerate or endorse this denigration or to participate in any way in silencing feminist abolitionist discourse. Whatever the analysis of certain feminist groups or the issues at stake, we are asking you to act when these groups are treated as “crazy” or “violent.” Some women may not like to hear the feminist abolitionists talk. Abolitionists, for their part, do not enjoy hearing feminists defending the sex industry. But, abolitionist feminists cannot prevent women from talking and acting on their convictions and they are entitled to be treated likewise. Our discussions need to centre on ideas.

More specifically, we ask you to:

·        Sign this letter (no matter what you think about prostitution);

·        Denounce the denigration of feminist abolitionists when you witness this behaviour in discussion forums (meetings or social media);

·        Commit to working for a space free of intimidation and denigration within the États Généraux du féminisme.

French Version

To sign this letter, please contact: info@lacles.org

With our current system, first-past the post, or single-member plurality, the Conservative government secured a majority without the majority of the popular vote.  This is a systemic problem within our system that negates the views and opinions of millions of Canadians whose votes are essentially disregarded.

Consider what Canada’s federal government would look like with a system of proportional representation, a system where each vote cast is counted and represented in government.

A different Canada emerges, one where everyone’s voice is included.  Let’s talk about this!

This is a guest blog post by Beth Lyons, a now former part-time contract employee of the NB ACSW. To read more of Beth’s writing visit her blog: A Boston Marriage

Last Tuesday, the Government of New Brunswick slated the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women for abolition by eliminating 100% of its funding from the provincial budget. If this defunding is carried out, the effects will be devastating not only for the women of New Brunswick, but for all Canadian women. This Council is an arms-length government agency that has been advocating for women since 1977 and is, frankly, irreplaceable.

Historically, the N.B. ACSW has been the gold standard in provincial/territorial Advisory Councils (there are 8 of these agencies in total). The Council published the country’s first brochure on battered women in 1979 and led the way in developing a system for gender-based analysis in Canada. As Dr. Wendy Robbins (Professor at UNB and co-founder of the institution’s Women’s Studies Program) explained to CBC, “They’ve done a phenomenal job, they’ve put issues on the agenda nationally, and they’re just a treasure trove of research, of outreach, of consultation; of everything that an agency does well, they’re a model of it. I’ve often suggested to other people that they look at this little gem we have in New Brunswick.”

History and praise aside, here are some other things that the Council does:

• Publishes a biennial statistical report on the status of women in New Brunswick, a document that brings together information that, in some cases, would be otherwise inaccessible and presents it in a way that is understandable to those who aren’t numbers-experts. The Council also pull smaller, more concise fact-sheets out of that report and updates them regularly to ensure that current numbers are available between publications of full reports;
• Hosts lunch and learn events around all regions of the province, often partnering with grassroots organizations that otherwise would not have the funding to present their work publicly;
• The Council’s chairperson has a weekly column dedicated to commenting on women’s issues in the Times & Transcript newspaper. In the past year, the column has discussed trans issues, abortion rights, pay equity, media coverage of women in politics, white privilege, pay equity, gender-based analysis, and dozens of other topics. A 2010 column, explaining Canada’s prostitution laws and examining the approach other countries take, gained international notice and earned the Council’s Executive Director an invitation to Sweden for a journalists’ tour. The Executive director the people responsible for the Sweden’s progressive legislation on prostitution and was able to talk to many front line workers about the law;
• Produces a weekly email newsletter that goes out to over 4 000 subscribers. This newsletter is a dense piece of work packed with information on events, amusing anecdotes, facts from reports, and excerpts from studies;
• Operates a toll free line that women can call to ask about services, bring issues to attention, suggest ideas, make complaints, and inquire about the status of issues;
• Offers advice to the government, consulting with them on decisions, policies and programs. Because the Council is arms-length, they can call bullshit when they needed to; their independent status gives them the ability to speak truth to power;

The Council did all this work with a whopping few hundred thousand dollars a year. Before the budget was announced, the Council operated on $418 000 a year. The Government of New Brunswick is stating that funding for the Council is being cut because the province is in dire financial straits, not as an attempt to “water down” the voice of women’s advocates. The Government is insistent that the Council overlaps with the Women’s Issues Branch in Executive Council, that there is duplication in services that must be eliminated.

It’s true that there is a Women’s Issues Branch within the New Brunswick government that works with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. They do good work, though it tends to be on non-controversial issues that most everyone supports, such as providing services to victims of violence. In fact, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has said that at the end of the day, the Government had to make a decision between cutting 14 front-line workers or cutting the Council, and that the Government chose services over than advocacy. The Government assures us that the functions of the NB ACSW will be absorbed into the Women’s Issues Branch and that no services will be sacrificed as a result. The Government tells us that two new positions are even being created in the Women’s Issues Branch and have been offered to ACSW employees (which also means that the savings from the elimination of the Council are not the full $418 000), while pledging that the Minister responsible for the Status of Women will act as a strong advocate for the women of the province.

It is, of course, patently ridiculous for the Government to suggest that these two bodies overlap simply because they are both focused on women. Though they are dedicated to the same group (that happens to comprise half of the population), these departments have very different mandates and focuses. In some ways, they are antithetical to one another: one exists to nip at the heels of government and one exists to do the express bidding of government. To expect a Minister and a branch of civil servants to be able to speak up and advocate for women in the same way that an independent agency does is ludicrous. For example, will the Minister and the Women’s Issues Branch be adopting a pro-choice stance and begin advocating for improved abortion access in New Brunswick? The Council holds a pro-choice stance and deplored New Brunswick’s reprehensible regulation that forces women seeking publicly-funded abortions to not only find two doctors to deem their abortion “medically necessary” but to then have the procedure performed in one of the two hospitals in the province that provide abortions, rather than a clinic. Will the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and the Women’s Issues Branch take on their anti-choice higher-ups? If they’re advocates, they should; after all, the Supreme Court of Canada guarantees a woman’s right to choose and the Canada Health Act states that abortions are to be publicly funded.

I think we all know that this cut is not about eliminating overlap in services; it is about silencing an agency that has been tremendously effective in advocating for women. As the blog Save Our Advisor Council says, “$418 000 isn’t enough money to make a difference in our provincial budget; it is enough to muzzle the pesky voices of New Brunswick women!” At the heart of things is the fact that the Council did its job all too well, so it had to be shut down. We will not see the Minister responsible for the Status of Women or the Women’s Issues Branch suddenly speak out on issues that are deemed to controversial or may cast the Government in a negative light, nor will we see them as involved as the Council is at community and grassroots levels. We will see them continue to tell women that they have to chose between services and advocacy and that the fight for equality is not the concern of government.

The reign of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives may be, at last, coming to an end in Canada.  With a federal election slated for May 2^nd, the campaigns of the five major parties are in full swing.  Though the outcome may be more of the same, one can hope that Canadians will this time elect a government that actually wants parliament to work as a democracy, and not re-elect the same hypocritical, controlling and dismissive party we have had these last five years.

The conservative government fell after being found to be in contempt of parliament, but these follies are only the last in a long line of political maneuvers that have been used by Harper to manipulate the Canadian parliamentary system to maintain power and control, whilst eroding the socially-minded principles and policies that had been Canada’s raison d’être, and characterized our involvement in international politics.

Harper has achieved little that is positive as the leader of Canada’s last two governments, and it is well worth remembering the hypocritical moves he has made as leader that have undermined and eroded democracy in Canada.

Ethical and Transparent Politics?  Secrecy and control have been the name of the game

Despite promising to renew ethical conduct and bring transparency to federal politics, Stephen Harper has kept his MPs under a virtual gag-order since taking power, a move that has centralized control and restricted policy discussions to a few key issues.  Only select ministers are ever allowed to speak to the press (read MP Jason Kenny and MP Peter Mackay).  One of the most important issues in Canada is healthcare, yet I struggle to remember any meaningful discussion had about that portfolio in the last 5 years.  Transparent politics under Harper has meant discussion of issues on his terms, and his terms only.

Muzzling the Press

Harper restricted media access to the parliament and government in unprecedented ways- again from someone who pledged to increase transparency.   He declared he would no longer take questions from journalists, refused to allow the media to participate in ‘scrums’ after cabinet meetings- a time when journalists ask candid questions of politicians (questions said politicians have not been able to rehearse and censor).  It’s clear that Harper’s main priority in office has been control, and muzzling the media has been a major part of that.

Senate Reform

Recall that a major policy platform of Harper’s previous campaigns was senate reform, such that senators would no longer be appointed for political favoritism, but would rather be elected.  Doesn’t ring a bell?  Harper apparently forgot all about it too, immediately after taking office.

Here’s a quote from Harper, addressing the senate. On senate reform.

“As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform – on their way to the top. The promises are usually made in Western Canada. And these statements of intent are usually warmly received by party activists, editorial writers and ordinary people. But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government’s agenda. Nothing ever gets done.  And the status quo goes on.”

Senate reform didn’t happen.  The conservatives appointed a record 32 senators, all of them Tory backers there to ensure Harper’s bills were passed, and to squash those he doesn’t support.  Like Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act.  Environmental concerns are consistently discussed as important to Canadians, yet the Harper government did absolutely nothing about it during his 5 years in power.

No crossing the floor… except when we want to

This was another ‘undemocratic’ practice Harper sought to put an end to before he was elected for the first time in 2006.  Predicatbly, when it was in his government’s favour, this pledge also went by the wayside after forming government.  Elected as a Liberal, MP David Emerson made the switch to the Conservative party only seven days into the new government’s term, invited by Prime Minister Harper to take the position of Trade Minister; he remains in Harper’s cabinet as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Stephen Harper made by-elections for floor-crossers part of his campaign platform in 2006, and yet immediately proved his complete lack of integrity within the first week with his invitation to Emerson to sit as a cabinet minister.

Prorouging Parliament… Twice

Harper’s prorougation of parliament, which he did twice to avoid the fall of his minority government, was yet another dismissal of democracy and flagrant refusal to govern and work with other parties in the house.  The first time, rather than face parliament and a vote of non-confidence that might bring down the government, he suspended parliament.  Again, in a move made solely out of self-interest, Harper chose to suspend parliament for a second time from Dec 30 2009 to Mar 3 2010, when his officials were being grilled by parliamentary committees on the afghan detainee issue.  Rather than face these committees, he suspended parliament, and then took the opportunity to appoint several new conservative senators, such that when the parliamentary committees were formed anew after the ‘break’, the conservatives had decidedly more players in their court.

Coalitions are ‘undemocratic’

Harper has spent a lot of time railing against the ‘undemocratic’ nature of proposed coalitions between other parties (read the Liberals, NDP, and maybe the Bloc working together). This is shocking!  Elected members from other parties working together?  This is unheard of!

Except that it isn’t: it happens in many, many, many democracies around the world.  It’s happened in Canada before, too. And those governments may end up being more accountable and productive, because instead of bickering all the time, they work together and negotiate to pass legislation that is in their collective interest.  Coalitions are not undemocratic, nor are they illegal, despite what conservative spin-doctors would have you believe

In our first-past-the-post system, a party can, and often does, ascend to power with only about 30-40% of the popular vote.  60-70% of us wanted something different, yet if we did not vote for the party that forms the government, our voices remain unheard.  Coalitions offer real potential to change this, so it’s no surprise that Harper, who is primarily concerned with gaining and maintaining power at any cost, is working hard during this campaign to discredit the idea.

And the list goes on…

Harper represented Canada shamefully at the Cophenhagen Convention where we were lambasted for our plans to do, well, nothing, about climate change.  Harper clearly wants to turn the clock back on women’s rights, which he has been steadily doing. Canada was denied a UN Security Council seat, unsurprising given our recent zeal for neo-conservatism.  We were a nation once known for peacekeeping and negotiation, yet now we have twice elected a government intent on increasing Canada’s military involvement in foreign wars and filling our jails.

Are we really a conservative nation?  The direction Harper has steered us doesn’t look like the Canada I thought we were, or the one I thought we used to be.

Others are taking note of the erosion of democracy that is occurring in Canada, and we cannot sit back and let it happen. Harper has more than proved his contempt for democracy, lack of ethical principles, obsession with control and secrecy, and desire to abolish the socially-minded institutions and liberal principles that Canada used to be known for.  I don’t want to see what Harper will make of Canada if given another chance to form the government; let’s keep him from getting it.