How they're done wrong

Robin Summerfield reviews Jean Kilbourne's new book in the Calgary Herald, So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids. I've ranted before (here, too) about sexualizing childhood (it's not new) and agree that as parents there is much to be done to ensure children are able to play with toys that don't "eroticize shopping early on". Consume, consume consume. A commenter to the article asserts:

It's the parents that buy into this, a preschooler does not walk into a store and slap down her credit card. I am raising two daughters without resorting to buying them these stupid dolls, and they are very aware of the sexualization issue, we discuss it frankly. They know how badly skewed advertising is and how retouched the photos in magazines are, and they choose to believe beauty is as beauty does.

It's true, it is indeed parents who influence, educate, and provide entertainment to kids (It's not just girls that are impacted by sexy little girl dolls. Boys are given the message that girls are sex objects and need these issues address as much as girls do). Sheltering kids is not the only way to deal with the issue. But for families where parents do not provide this guidance, are sexed-up 12 year old big headed sleeze balls something children should be able to resist on their own? Are they safe to be on television in homes where programs aren't monitored? What about censoring by networks? If parents don't say no and change the channel, who is held accountable? Scholastic has pulled Bratz doll ["those ubiquitous half-naked, big-eyed, pouty-lipped plastic dolls, a tarty Barbie replacement for seven- to 10-year-olds weaned on a star-studded TV diet laden with celebutantes like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears."] books from the discount catalogue. I disagree with the pejorative headline tag word, "BANNED". Scholastic acted in response to angered parents. The books aren't BANNED in the schools, they're just not offered at discounted prices. Cudos to Scholastic. Action works. Revolution revises.

Goodbye Marion Dewar

Dewar: A true city activist

"Today we have lost one of our heroes," said former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent. "Marion Dewar was a champion of what was just and right."

Often reformers become negative and embittered in their fight for social justice, Mr. Broadbent said, but that was not the case for Marion Dewar.

"She was a happy warrior. She had an ongoing desire to do good, to do the public good," said Mr. Broadbent. "She was a joyful soul."

"This is a very sad day for our city. She was one of the strongest mayors this city has had," said Councillor Diane Deans.

"I'm really in shock. This is a real loss," said Councillor Peggy Feltmate. "Our community has really lost a great asset, a woman who was a conscience for the community."

Equal Voice, Equal Choice?

This article was forwarded to me yesterday by Equal Voice, and it's a good read. An excerpt:

So it shouldn't be a shocker that even though women make up more than half the population, we hold only 20 per cent of seats in the House.

Of the 20 major-party candidates in the five Ottawa ridings, only four are women, and not one is a Conservative. Three -- an NDP candidate and two Greens -- hardly stand a chance. That leaves Collenette fighting a tight race in Ottawa Centre with NDP incumbent Paul Dewar and well-known Tory businessman Brian McGarry.

Consider this: Canada has no female premiers, no female major-city mayors. We have fewer women in parliament than most countries in Europe, not to mention Mauritania, Uganda, Rwanda, Afghanistan and Iraq.

These are statistics that Equal Voice is trying to change. A non-partisan, non-profit organization made up of women and men, Equal Voice is launching a cheeky ad campaign, urging voters to support female candidates and, perhaps more important, to consider factors other than how they look.

I've been to some Equal Voice events and appreciate their good work. I understand the importance of being non-partisan, but I don't agree with the rational to vote for a woman just because she's a woman. I wouldn't vote for a woman who wouldn't represent the interests I value. I would vote for the party that has a representative that I feel could be competent and speak on behalf of the community's best social values and justice. But the fact remains that there aren't enough women representing the parties for all the reasons outlined in the Citizen's article. I recently did a little investigating the candidate I would normally vote for, representing the NDP party, which I support. This person has no educational background in politics, isn't an outspoken advocate hasn't blogged or made public comments with reaction to the campaign, current issues and events, or voter apathy. This is the first election where I'm completely disgusted with the representative; as the campaign manager replied, "s/he's good at ----" (insert any unrelated hobby). Good at -hobby-? That's all they could say about this candidate when the credentials were questioned? Unbelievable. There must be a more appropriate individual who could be the party representative. I'm stuck, now, because I'm not confident how to vote. The NDP party would receive $1.75 from me if I did vote for the incompetent. On the other hand, I don't want to waste my vote if my riding is actually a close competition between the Cs and the Ls. My liberal rep is a woman but I need to make damn sure she's pro-choice, anti war, anti-privatization, pro-arts, etc; I won't simply cast a Venus symbol ballot without understanding her platform (and I've been having a hard time finding this out). Calgary's conservative saturation seems to be quieting all candidates that aren't Tory! Why do they not have more to say!? Why are the candidates becoming as apathetic as the voters!!??

In Herstory

"This was the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state."

Alaska Women Reject Palin Rally - Mudflats

Via What Really Happened

Event Announcement

Felection - Fixing the Date

Democracy Watch outlines some of the reasons why Harper's Election call is bad for democracy:

. . . delaying the election until at least spring 2009 would give time to pass key bills, as well as complete various investigations and court cases, on key good government issues, as follows:

-a proposed law that bans loans to election candidates (except by banks and other financial institutions) is still under review by the Senate, and until it passes the loans loophole will allow anyone to buy off a candidate in violation of the spirit of donation limits that came into effect a few years ago;
-the investigation and court case concerning limits on spending on advertising by local candidates is not completed, and holding an election when limits are not clearly defined will likely lead to abuse in election spending;
-a court case filed by Democracy Watch has not been completed, and as a result it is unclear exactly what lobbyists can do to help candidates and parties during elections;
-another court case filed by Democracy Watch has not been completed, and as a result it is unclear whether Prime Minister Harper and his Cabinet violated the federal Conflict of Interest Act by making decisions concerning the Mulroney-Schreiber affair;
-the federal Ethics Commissioner has still not ruled on whether Finance Minister Jim Flaherty violated the Conflict of Interest Act when he handed out a contract to a friend, and;
-last but certainly not least, there are 90 loopholes in the federal government’s accountability and decision-making system that need to be closed, including loopholes that allow party leaders to lie to voters when making election promises, that allow secret donations to nomination race candidates, and that allow party leaders to dictate who will be the candidate in any riding.

Via Rabble.

'Lympics Shlympics

I'm proud to say I didn't watch the opening ceremonies. I didn't watch diving, swimming, running, jumping; I didn't watch the closing ceremonies or follow the number of medals Canada won. It wasn't so much a boycotting issue (although I recall that in 1980 61 countries boycotted Russia's Olympics over its invasion of Afghanistan), and it wasn't only because I don't have a television connected to cable or the complimentary 4 channels Calgary offers. I don't give a flying fuck about the olympics. The papers were filled with gleaming and teary faces. Bush got drunk and stumbled about Beijing while Georgia and Russia faught for control of South Ossetia. I have always felt that the Olympics eclipse the news that actually impacts the world. ANYWAY, with all the attention on China's political history and past and current strategies, the world shakes fingers at a nation with dirty hands. But as Yves Engler rants in Rabble News, as Canadians let's take a look in the mirror at our own dirty faces:

So many words written or spoken about human rights violations, lip-synching, suppression of Tibet, taped fireworks, Communist dictatorship, evil Chinese nationalism and yet what about context? Or what about how Canada might seem to them?

Has any media discussed Canada’s decades-long support of British imperialism in China? Opium War anyone? Dividing the country up among European powers?

How about Canadian business, missionary and diplomatic support for Japan’s brutal invasion of China in the 1930s? What about the weapons and $60 million Ottawa sent to aid Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang fighting Mao’s forces after World War II? Certainly one of the outraged Canadian columnists could have found room to mention Ottawa’s refusal to recognize the Chinese Communist government for 21 years?

For many years this refusal to recognize the new government was justified by citing Chinese "aggression" in the Korean War that left four million dead. During that war Canada sent 27,000 troops halfway across the world, partly in response to China’s revolution the previous year. China, on the other hand, only intervened after 500,000 hostile troops approached its border with northern Korea.

From historical amnesia concerning Canada-China relations through Tibet and Sudan the media’s double standard is glaring.

Does anyone believe that prior to Vancouver’s 2010 Olympics we will see a media barrage about the British Columbia land stolen from First Nations? Interviews on all the TV networks with spiritual leaders of the Lil’wat, Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh? Does it take a graduate degree in history to see the parallels between the actions of the Chinese government in Tibet and the European settlement of Canada?

Or, how about comparing Canada’s role in the Congo to China’s role in Sudan?

Ultiimately, it's our own personal responsibility to know what's happening in the world and take whatever action we feel necessary. But whether or not we watch the Olympics or even, in 2010 & 2012, attend the Olympics in Vancouver and London, the chess games of military powers go on and in my opinion that very Chess Game is the ultimate and most important, world-impacting game of all.

Excerpts

First Person: Excerpts from the Beat Within
Personal essays from prostitutes, gang members, and other incarcerated teenagers.

Via Mother Jones

Prepare for Heart Wrenching.

Jekyl & Heidi

I found this book review on Boing Boing this morning and am intrigued:

Screenwriter/producer Lauren McLaughlin's YA novel debut, Cycler is just out, and just in time -- this is a book that the kids in your life really need to read, a gender-bending piece of speculative fiction aimed at young people that manages to say novel, useful, and challenging things about gender and sexuality without ever descending into squicky fluid-exchange or soapy romance.
Jill McTeague has a secret: every 28 days, at the start of her menstrual cycle, she...changes. Painful, graphically, her body transforms into an adolescent male form, and her mind is remade as Jack McTeague, an angry, horny teenaged boy who stays locked in Jill's room for four days until she comes back to reclaim her body and mind. Her stepfordwife mom is mortified by this, and bent on ensuring that none of their neighbors in their affluent Massachusetts suburb discover their family's dark secret, and her absentee father (moved into the basement years ago to practice meditation and yoga) is no help either.

Jill does everything she can to pretend that her four-day absences just don't happen, while Jack seethes and rages against his captivity, in chapters that alternate between both points of view. Both characters are flawed and likable, smart but dumb about emotional stuff in exactly the way I was when I was a teenager. McLaughlin does an admirable job of nailing the voice of Jack -- I know that hormone-addled, enraged teenaged boy. I was that boy.

McLaughlin's screenwriting background carries through well, too: the plot is faultless, building from the weird premise (and the concomitant weirdness) to a series of ever-more-desperate scenarios that have you rooting for Jack and Jill even as you facepalm yourself and peer between your fingers at the wreck they're making of their lives.

This is a book about sex and love, and it's got a lot of it -- but not steamy between-the-sheets stuff (though there's some of that). Instead, McLaughlin's sex and love happens between the ears, in the realm of the mind and its contradictory and embarrassing and fickle passions. Through it all, there's always something redeeming happening, some sense that these people might, somehow, muddle through.

I've got a few years before my newborn daughter needs to start thinking about these things, but this is one I'm putting on the shelf for when she does.

Dialogue about menstruation is lacking for young people and this book sounds like it hits a lot of the emotional issues of being an adolescent on the menstrual metaphorical nail!

Happy Anniversary!

Lilith Attack has turned One this month!Thanks to all my readers, visitors and those who take the time to comment and connect!

In solidarity,
Lilith Attack

Endorsing Anne Lagacé Dowson

This is the first I've read about Anne Lagacé Dowson (bio), but BoingBoing writer Cory Doctorow extols her virtues and offers his support. One to watch!

On Feminism

Published in the Calgary Herald and last week by Canwest in the Edmonton Journal, writer Misty Harris takes a look at the problem facing young women who are identifying with feminism: the stripper pole or social activism?

Bombarded by a dizzying array of ideas and images, individuals believe girl power is synonymous with short skirts as much as advanced education. They are demonstrating their independence through community involvement and at the stripper pole. And even as young females are equalling male achievements in math and science competitions, they're matching them shot for shot in bars -- studies show more college women are "drinking like men" and getting drunk more today than in the last 20 years.

It's all evidence of how young women are seeking to make their way in a culture of conflicting messages, experts say.

"They don't realize it's a lot more complicated."

HORRAY!!!

Buh Bye, ugly american death sucker!

Krispy Kreme exits Calgary

and here.

Janes in Love

Via Boing Boing this morning:

Janes in Love: graphic novel is a call-to-art for young people

The P.L.A.I.N. Janes are an arts collective made up of high-school girls all named Jane, who stage daring, commando-style public art projects in the dead of night, transforming their tight-ass suburb into an outdoor art gallery. They're not just in it for the hell of it, either: their little suburb was the site of a terrorist scare and bombing that has everyone on edge and baying for authority.

The Janes won't take this lying down. They refuse to be terrorized, and continue making their art, even though it gets them in trouble with the authorities and their parents, and nearly drives them apart.

But the Janes aren't just serious art-guerrillas; they're also teenaged girls, and the art-shenanigans aren't doing much for their love-lives, or their friendships.

I've recently been reading woman-centred graphic novels/comic books and this is one I definitely want to check out!!!

Fatfobia

A news report, "Fit and Fat: It's Possible" by Reuters actually questions the West's linking of fat and health. I know a lot of slender women who have been on some very dangerous diets or eat poorly or drink nothing but powder drinks and are very far from healthy. Skinny is not necessarily healthy. (a) does not equal (b). Remember this!!!