Boner Killer

Porn Culture and Children: CBC Documentary "Sex't Up Kids"

2012-02-23T10:44:00.001-07:00

Tonight CBC television will feature a documentary called "Sex't Up" which looks at the growing sexualization of girl-children, the increase in young boy's access to hardcore pornography, and how it is all impacting young people's notions of sex and sexuality as well as their self-esteem, and self-worth.

One of the previews for the documentary summed it up pretty well. Featured was a mother and her daughter, watching of Katy Perry's "California Girls" music video. During the video, the mother said to her daughter, "how often do you see Bono humping cotton candy, half naked, in order to sell his music?"

I chuckled loudly, but realized how pathetically accurate this mother was. Why are women and girls taught that the only way they can get ahead in life or gain any respect is through performing sexuality - through appearing to be nothing more than a one-dimensional caricature of sexiness. Men can gain respect without gyrating, humping or taking their clothes off...

But I digress...

CBC's website provides some statistics from the film:

Pre-teen clothing market is worth an estimated 150 billion dollars a year.
A survey of 15 major pre-teen clothing sites found that 1/3 of apparel was considered 'sexualized'.
A recent survey showed that 22% of teenage girls report anal sex in the last 60 days.
It's estimated that 70-80% of teenage boys watch pornography.
Another survey showed that 1/3 of admits to sending a naked or near naked picture to their 'crush'

The documentary will be speaking to young children and teens about their own experiences navigating porn culture. So please, please check out this documentary tonight as it is airing on Doc Zone at 9 pm Eastern and Pacific time.

*** If you want to watch the film online, it is now available streaming here ***

Links - February 19, 2012

2012-02-19T10:13:00.000-07:00

Links - February 19, 2012

the F-Word: Connecting the dots: Pornography, the VPD, and violence against women

the F-Word: the Pink and Blue Project

IBTP: BeeDeeEssEm insiders have unpopular revelation

IBTP: Spinster aunt prattles on about pornography

IBTP: No. 2 Science Information

Skeptifem: Pit nutters to brown people: you have so much in common with dogs

Qvaken: Advertising! Part 5: Killing Us Softly 4 and Breasts And Breast Enhancement Surgery

Rage Against the Manchine: Porn Part 10: The Rutting Dogs of Capitalism

Anti-Porn Men Project: Emma winter edition: The dream of being a porn star – Part I: The road to porn

Illusions of Power through the Status Quo

2012-02-12T11:41:00.000-07:00

found here

In the past few weeks, my gaze has been overwhelmed by an increase in patriarchal propaganda. Whether it be mural-sized advertisements for pharmaceutical drugs that sport oiled up gals punching shit with boxing gloves, or posters featuring a woman's torso being smothered in a pink corset reading: Striptease, Sexual Shame, Sex Work - it is clear that everything Ariel Levy wrote about in Female Chauvinist Pigs has been ever-increasing in the West.

“We have to ask ourselves why we are so focused on silent girly-girls in G-strings faking lust. This is not a sign of progress, it's a testament to what's still missing from our understanding of human sexuality with all its complexity and power. We are still so uneasy with the vicissitudes of sex we need to surround ourselves with caricatures of female hotness to safely conjure up the concept of 'sexy.' When you think about it, it's kind of pathetic.” (Levy, p. 198)

It seems that the whole confidence for cash shtick has really taken off. Usually, yet not surprisingly, these "confidence campaigns" target women. Women can be satisfied and confident about themselves, they say, but it has to be like in the good ole' days, through through our bodies, through our ability to sexually arouse and titillate men - not through our minds, our ideas, or our actions. Now, this consumer-friendly notion of empowerment and self-confidence is being sold as socially progressive and pro-woman - but it is only re-naming (or re-branding!) the status quo.

“Women's liberation and empowerment are terms feminists started using to talk about casting off the limitations imposed upon women and demanding equality. We have perverted these words. The freedom to be sexually provocative or promiscuous is not enough freedom; it is not the only 'women's issue' worth paying attention to. And we are not even free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist. There are other choices. If we are really going to be sexually liberated, we need to make room for a range of options as wide as the variety of human desire. We need to allow ourselves the freedom to figure out what we internally want from sex instead of mimicking whatever popular culture holds up to us as sexy. That would be liberation" (Levy, p. 200).

Whether it comes from the billion dollar beauty industry, burlesque revivalist camps, the pornography industry, striptease weight-loss home exercise DVDs, or the comical yet profoundly vain self-help industry - the West is obsessed with promoting false reality and false consciousnesses that favors patriarchy and normalizes it.

Source:
Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy, pp. 198 and 200, 2005, Free Press

Andrea Dworkin's Heartbreak: "Prisons"

2012-02-06T17:29:00.000-07:00

Here is the entire (short) chapter "Prisons" from Andrea Dworkin's Heartbreak

Prisons 1

Perhaps because I came from the pacifist left, I had an intense and abiding hatred for prisons (even though the U. S. prison system was developed by the Quakers). After the publication of Our Blood, I wrote a proposal for a book on prisons. I was struck by the way prisons stayed the same through time and place: the confinement of an individual in bad circumstances with a sadistic edge and including all the prison rites of passage. I was struck by how prisons were the only places in which men were threatened with rape in a way analogous to the female experience. I was struck by the common sadomasochistic structure of the prison experience no matter what the crime or country or historical era. That proposal was rejected by a slew of publishers. I found myself at a dead end.

But an odd redemption was at hand. I had noticed that in all pornography one also found the prison as leitmotif, the sexualization of confining and beating women, the ubiquitous rape, the dominance and submission of the social world in which women were literally and metaphorically imprisoned.

I decided to write on pornography because I could make the same points - show the same inequities - as with prisons. Pornography and prisons were built on cruelty and brutalization; the demeaning of the human body as a form of punishment; the worthlessness of the individual human being; restraint, confinement, tying, whipping, branding, torture, penetration, and kicking as commonplace ordeals. Each was a social construction that could be different but was not; each incorporated and exploited isolation, dominance and submission,humiliation, and dehumanization. In each the effort was to control a human being by attacking human dignity. In each the guilt of the imprisoned provided a license to animalize persons, which in turn led to a recognition of the ways in which animals were misused outside the prison, outside the pornography. Arguably (but not always), those in prison had committed an offense; the offense of women in pornography was in being women. In both prisons and pornography,sadomasochism was a universal dynamic; there was no chance for reciprocity or mutuality or an equality of communication.

In prison populations and in pornography, the most aggressive rapist was at the top of the social structure. In prison populations gender was created by who got fucked; so, too, in pornography. It amazed me that in pornography the prison was recreated repeatedly as the sexual environment most conducive to the rape of women.

The one difference, unbridgeable, intractable, between prisons and pornography was that prisoners were not expected to like being in prison, whereas women were supposed to like each and every abuse suffered in pornography.

1. p. 127-129 in Heartbreak by Andrea Dworkin, Published by Perseus Books Group
Copywrite 2002 Andrea Dworkin

** All of Andrea's published works can be found online, courtesy of radfem.org **

Andrea Dworkin's Heartbreak: Passage in a Post I

2012-01-31T16:34:00.000-07:00

Andrea Dworkin's Heartbreak was moving, inspiring, shocking, and honest. Since the entire book cannot be outlined in a blog post, several more passages will be posted at a later time.

[From the chapter Anita.*]

"She and Abbie had not been together for a while . It was clear that she was poor. She said that she didn't know what to do, that a friend of Abbie's had offered her work as a prostitute ("escort," high end of the line) and was putting a lot of pressure on her. Abbie's latest caper had left her destitute. This guy was a friend of Abbie's, so he had to be okay, right? She had thought of doing organizing -- poor, single mothers like herself had no political power in the system; but really, what was wrong with prostituting? She could earn a lot of money and she was lonely. Honey, I thought, you don't begin to know what lonely is.

I told her about my own experiences in the trade, especially about the disassociation that was essential to doing the deed. You had to separate your mind from your body. Your consciousness had to be hovering somewhere near the ceiling behind you or on the far side of the room watching your body. No one got through it without having that happen. I also told her that she'd begin to hate men; at first manipulating them would seem like power, but eventually and inevitably the day would come when one perceived them as coarse and brutal, smelly, dirty bullies. She had said that she liked sex and that she had had sex with the guy who was now trying to pimp her. I told her that sex with Abbie's friend was a set up to make her more pliant and that in prostituting one lost the ability to feel, so if one liked sex it was the last thing, not the first thing, that one should do." 1

*Anita Hoffman, married to activist Abbie Hoffman

1. p. 162 in Heartbreak by Andrea Dworkin, Published by Perseus Books Group
Copywrite 2002 Andrea Dworkin

Links - January 24, 2012

2012-01-24T10:51:00.000-07:00

Links - January 24, 2012

Nine Deuce The third (and probably last) trans post of my life

Twisty Pinkness ensures replication of patriarchal ideals

Twisty Fairy tale Sunday

The F-Word The World According to Porn

The F-Word Why Hollywood needs Help

The F-Word On Pornography and the Persistence of Patriarchy

Metis' Blog on Muslim Feminists Hijab and niqaab and the ban

Almost Clever To Betray

Heartbreak: The Political Memoir of a Feminist Militant

2012-01-21T16:32:00.002-07:00

Yes, my copy of Andrea's memoir has finally arrived! I am considering a formal post, for my thoughts after the book is completed, but so far this book has been raw, honest and sometimes, surprising. This book, like her others, is incredibly inspiring to read - her writing is beautiful.

Unfortunately, this book cannot be found in most mega-book stores like Indigo, but yet are purchasable as "used and rare" on their website.

Thus far the book has been difficult to put down and in reading it, I have learned so much about Andrea's life that I would have never imagined or assumed. So many have taken to distorting Andrea Dworkin's character her ideas, but this memoir tears those misrepresentations to shreds.

So, read it!

(also, found a free copy of Susan Faludi's Backlash...!!)

Written Off

2012-01-16T16:56:00.000-07:00

Wow, I guess when you speak out against people being called terrible names like "shemale" and "trannie" and you get removed from blog rolls and link lists - this is truly telling, considering we get pretty disgusted when other groups of people are called degrading names.

It is baffling though, how speaking out against such name calling gets me virtually "kicked out" of the club (not that I was ever consciously affiliated with or represented by a particular organization or group) -- but, if that is how it is, then that is how it will be. However, it is better to speak up than to remain silent. But it does shock me to think of how few women wanted to discuss the actual name-calling that was the central theme of my last post. Instead, many decided to focus on their critiques rather than the actual issue presented in my post, which was regarding the way trans people are being talked about in some radical feminist spaces online.

People who disagree should not be treated like this, at least, it seems contradictory and unproductive as disagreement is a natural part of life and a natural part of growth. To claim that I am simply a "traitor" because I believe that trans people should be treated like humans and should not be called names is just absurd. How are we getting to the point now, in our ideas and politics, where any dissent from any other woman ultimately makes her a "write-off" and deserving of being virtually shit on?

I wonder how united such a movement can be if it is willing to shit on anyone who questions anything that is proposed or discussed within that movement?

Comments are disabled for this post as I am frankly sick of the links to random trans-related posts (by the way, I have read many of these posts throughout the year) and assaults on my character. This post is a reflective of my thoughts surrounding the aftermath of my last post, it is not here for discussion. If you want to actually have a discussion that does involve the central theme of that last post (the name-calling), the post is still open for comments.

Rage at Rage Against the Manchine, now Rage at Boner Killer?

2012-01-11T18:44:00.002-07:00

photo found here

Well, shit. Here we are.
I'm taking the step that will likely cause me to lose some readers. Twisty did it and now, Nine Deuce has also spoken up. Both radical feminist bloggers have "played" the "trans card" and raised concerned eyebrows at the recent discussions taking place in some of the radical feminist blog-o-sphere.

So, you guessed it! I will be yet another radical feminist blogger who will "play" the trans card, I will do so with what was originally an unpublished comment on Nine Deuces' blog. This post came about from my discomfort with some of the language being used in parts of the online radical feminist community. The recent post at RATM has forced me to come to terms my unease and publicly respond. So, here is that comment expanded.

I think there is a difference between providing a critical analysis and being mean - one can be critical of a movement or individuals without being mean. But when critiques do become mean and resort to name-calling, they no longer appear as thoughtful feminist critiques. This is because it is simply not thoughtful to refer to an entire group of people as "she-males" and "trannies." This sort of name calling is disgusting. Just like it is disgusting when women are called names or those who are older, larger, less abled, less white, less straight, less "beautiful" are called names.

We know, as radical feminists, exactly how it feels to be called an array of horrible names. We know that name-calling is not an ideal path towards mature discussions. That said, there are trans activists who are abusive to radical feminists; I have witnessed name-calling on both sides. However, not ALL radical feminists take part in this just as not ALL trans people take part in abusing radical feminists or agree with what some of the abusive trans activists are doing or saying.

Why should radical feminists sink to the same level of name-calling, if we know how this treatment feels, why should we use it against a group of people that, as Nine Deuce said, are part of an oppressed group. It is unfair to make sweeping and cruel statements against any oppressed group. It is never necessary to waste time feeling hatred towards others - it will not create any real change or discussion. Hurtful language, like "she-males," has no place in any analysis or in any situation.

Update: There is NO censoring going on here, the only instances where I do not publish comments is when they are attacking of a particular group or written anonymously or by men.

All of my feelings on this subject are sketched out beautifully over at Rage Against The Manchine with her second post on the topic.

First "Links" of 2012

2012-01-10T07:57:00.002-07:00

Links - January 10, 2012

Rage against the Manchine - "Get ready to shit your pants, I'm going to use the word 'trans'"

Feminist Media Collective ~ "Because boys still matter more: The popularity of anti-bullying campaigns and the erasure of sexism"

Feminist Media Collective ~ “You watch that?” Why we consume violence against women as entertainment"

Feminist Media Collective ~ "Feminist Media Collective ~ "Who gets a say? The sex work lobby & the silencing of feminist voices."
Feminist Media Collective ~ "Can I get a f**k you? Why erections are always right and feminists are always wrong."

ThinkProgress ~"Rick Santorum's Top 10 Most Outrageous Campaign Statements"

Smashesthep ~ "Is it possible to abolish the patriarchy and pornstitution?"

Jordana's Jabberwocky ~ "Cultural Theory Thought Paper - Indian Princess Costume"

Prescribing Patriarchy: Dr. Oz

2012-01-06T20:15:00.002-07:00

found here

With the recent upsurge of television doctors and shrinks (targeting mainly women) it should come as no surprise that patriarchal propaganda is alive and well in the West. Television aficionado's spend hours every day in trances, listening to these so-called “professional” doctors spew advice on everything from what a healthy turd look like to how to maintain a boner. As someone who knows many people who tune into gawk at these star-struck docs, I feel obligated to discuss the trend. Since this post will likely be lengthy, the others may be discussed separately. Nevertheless, these “experts” include:

Dr. Drew Pinsky (addictions specialist)

Dr. Mehmet Oz (heart/lung surgeon)

Dr. Phil McGraw (psychologist)

Dr. Laura Berman (sexual health educator, relationship therapist)

Dr. Laura Schlessinger (right wing commentator, private marriage/relationship counseller, radio host)

I want to focus on Dr. Oz as he has a strong hold over the "medical-entertainment" market and spouts the most "advice" regarding women's bodies, sexual activity, and food consumption.

Oz's cuddly promo!!

The infamous Dr. Oz is actually a cardiothoracic surgeon with a net-worth of 7 million dollars. Before nabbing his own day time show, he was a habitual "expert guest" on the Oprah Winfrey show. With her help, The Dr. Oz Show was on the air and continues to be a popular choice for televised health enthusiasts. On the show, Oz conducts interactive demonstrations that seem to have been inspired by kindergarten classes in order to explain bodily processes. He often has guests from the audience take part in these demonstrations. His range of expertise, apparently, extends from heart surgery to mental health, sexuality, weight-loss and something he refers to as "Anti-Aging."

Preventing aging is a hot topic on the Dr Oz Show, he has a "superfood" to make you stop "looking old", because old people are not beautiful nor are they valuable (he openly uses the term "anti-aging" and has created an entire section for it on his website!) In this section, Oz asks, "Are your bones making you fat?" Clearly, our very bodily structure - our skeleton, is really to blame for our wrinkled woes! Dr. Oz's anti-aging agenda is closely linked to his obsession with the size of women's bodies.The surgeon in scrubs measures guests' waist sizes and weighs them on novelty scales. He has all kinds of diets and suggestions that are aimed at making everyone's body's the same - slim/fit
He manages to cram his weight-loss advice into other markets such as magazines and books. But his obsession with women's body size also ties in with his obsession with women's sexual activity. In his 100 weight loss tips, he suggests "Healthy sex may help control the amount of food you eat and it's great exercise."

Healthy sex? As opposed to unhealthy sex? Does the type and healthiness of the sex act change the number of calories burned?

This "you" expert has also stirred up controversy in the last few years. He featured a debatable topic referred to by his show as the "Arsenic Apple Juice Crisis!" This Crazy-McCrazerson episode has been referred to by some as nothing more than a "ratings ploy" but hey, Fox News thinks its all legit because a consumer report told them so!

With so much expertise and loyal viewership, the Dr Oz show has a lot of "buzz-creating" advice on sex and sexuality.

"Shocking Ways Your Hormones Are Affecting your Marriage!"

Oz makes his millions by giving his millions of viewers “doctor-approved”
sex advice, or should I say, intercourse advice. This advice is easily marketable and likely ups Oz's ratings.

He even offers sex advice on his website. Here, users can take the quiz, "How healthy is your libido?" Such a quiz does nothing more than perpetuate (hetero)normative ideas about sex-drives and sexual activity, the notion that high-libido is the standard and "normal." This is considered "normal" for men have high-libidos, it is "normal" for men, but a woman with a high-libido would likely be perceived much differently. However, low-libido in women is much more medicalized than a high-libido, this is because men are perceived to be hyper-sexual at all times and women are expected to be sexually available at all times. In fact, one of Oz's key-to-a-healthy-life tips is to have as much heterosexual intercourse as possible. Indeed, he claims up to 3+ times a week is adequate to maintain health. This degree of intercourse, he claims, will actually make you live longer!

Such advice fails to really discuss how "normal" sexuality has been socially constructed within a society that has a history of male dominance, colonialism, racism, and heteronormativity. Dr. Oz spouts out the same old, same old - he offers the same regurgitated, limited view of sexuality. His view is clear in this statement:

“It means, number one, that the penis works and for the male, the penis is a dipstick for your health. If it's working, everything else is probably working, too. When it's not, it could be a bunch of things, but something's not right. So it's a good litmus test if things are shaping up the way they're supposed to. For women, it's not about amount of sex. It's about quality of sex. They need loving, nurturing, sexual relationships in their lives.”

His incredibly phallocentric and sexist perspective is obvious from this quote. He proposes that men and women are so incredibly different, that is why they need different sex. For men, it is all about getting laid as much as possible, but for women, being as passive and sensitive as we are, require “quality” sex, which essentially means that our assumingly male partners must be able to “nurture” us while they penetrate us four times a week. This will gratify our apparently universal sexual needs as women! Our silly woman-brains are to blame! But, his advice is patronizing and downright silly. It is ridiculous to suggest that women require “different” sex simply because we are women, as if all women are heterosexual and that ALL heterosexual women desire to have intercourse. Of course, Oz points to a study that dates back to the 1960s to prove that men require intercourse. I have an inkling that Oz is alluding to Kinsey's sex research. To understand why such studies are not the best sources, one only needs to read Andrea Dworkin, who took to deconstructing Kinsey's work and his biases. Also, couldn't Oz pull up some recent studies? Possibly studies not conducted by a man...

Self-Explanatory

Like many doctors, though, Oz claims that this need is complicated and is due to the extensive “biological differences” in men and women’s brains (he even insists women's brains shrink during pregnancy!) Also, like many other doctors operating from a male-centric perspective, Oz believes in the seemingly new problem of “sex addiction." This "diagnosis" informs men that they actually cannot control using and buying women's bodies or consuming pornography. But men have different brains!
With this sexual equivalent of a “get out of jail free” card, it is easier for men to see themselves as victims and “powerless” over their decisions and actions that affect women, women's status in the world and society as a whole. Why don't we ask ourselves: what does such a diagnoses say about our society and what does it say about how we construct our social realities?

Patriarchy has a way of normalizing itself and the media assists in that normalization by providing men with reassurance that they indeed are not in control of themselves. Not only do men need to maintain sufficient erections, but they need to place that erection into a woman’s body or "deal with" their erection through using pornography. Women are then held responsible. Women are told to facilitate this apparently "inevitable" need that men have, this apparent healthy-life requirement. Women are to do this by providing constant access to their bodies -- through physical access, the male gaze and consuming self-criticism. How dare any woman (assuming, as Oz does, that she is heterosexual) try and shorten her husband’s life and negatively impact HIS health by not having intercourse with him?

Such televised medicalizing and public devaluing of women’s bodies, health, and sexuality, which is masked as“liberation” furthers sexual inequality and oppression. When rich people with lots of power spout out restrictive advice as "scientific truth" they truly allow propaganda to flow freely; propaganda that is intended to maintain the patriarchal status quo and keep women in a subordinate social position.

Sickening Search Terms

2011-11-30T19:55:00.000-07:00

Seeing the words "nightstick fuck" appear on my search terms twice today deeply disgusts and disturbs me.

I'll be back with a real post when the load lightens.

In the meantime...

Sociobiology Study: Low voices more "trusting" and why the discipline is sexist, racist nonsense

2011-11-15T18:39:00.000-07:00

For the last two nights now, listening to cbc radio one, I have found myself hearing of a ridiculous study conducted by a woman who has clarified her interest in discovering the "evolutionary basis of human behavior" aka sociobiology - you know, the train of thought that fascists hold of human behavior being fixed and unchangeable that lead to war, genocide and oppression.

But I digress.

This new study focuses solely on human voices and how lower voices are apparently more likely to show "dominance" and "leadership." According to this study, several people were asked to listen to the voices of men (yes, they failed to even include women in the study) and judge which voice is more "dominant" -- the findings showed that the lower voices were preferred for whether or not the person speaking could be trusted.

All of this was brought to my attention last night during the airing of my favourite radio programs, "As it Happens" and of course, the amazing Carol Off called her out on her clear sexism by asking why she did not include women. Whenever Carol would ask about what her study presented, especially about non-masculine voices and women in generally in political leadership positions, the woman kept responding with, "we didn't really think about that one..." or "well, that is a good point." She even went so far to highlight how Margaret Thatcher went through voice training to make her voice lower. Rather than critiquing WHY this might be, they simply seem to believe it is all "natural" and not something caused by a sexist society.

And so, tonight as I was listening to a separate program on CBC, the same study comes up as a way to say that a female politician in Canada may be at a "disadvantage" because of what this study has found. There is so much wrong here and no one is discussing this -- this problem is with the study itself. This study is biased in its biological deterministic, sexist, and restrictive approach to research. First of all, why would such research be conducted to begin with? Why would a woman be interested in such a study?

As someone who spends days of her year studying human evolution in Anthropology, I can confidently say that human behavior cannot be studied in the same way that other, non-human animal behavior are for the simple reason that we have culture. Our cultures and upbringings teach us behaviors, socialization skills and ways of being in our world -- a voice, whether deep or low, is not a starting ground to discuss who makes a better or worse political leader, or who is more "dominant" -- it simply tells us that a group of people who were asked to listen to voices and happened to find the lower ones more "trustworthy." Why are we circulating the story around like it has made some groundbreaking scientific discovery? How can we draw such huge, sexist conclusions about ability to leadership from such a ridiculous "evolutionary trait." Dominance in human societies is something that has a social basis -- dominance in chimps is very different, for example, than dominance in humans and should not be studied using the same guidelines. The pathetic part of this study, too, is the realization that such ideas still exist -- ideas that human behaviors are fixed and unchangeable, relying solely on evolutionary processes that take place in a naturalist scenario. The people who have supported such ideas include eugenicists, racists, sexists, and fascists. These are the people who are "concerned" with trying to "prove" that human behavior has some intrinsic, biological cause. Why must we continue on with such harmful misinformation disguised as "scientific data."

Notions about people being "naturally" one wayor "naturally" another has lead our world into bloody wars, oppression, discrimination, and genocides. This is all in the name of "science" which is allegedly above all scrutiny. An example of this that I did an extensive research paper on regards one J. Philippe Rushton, a evolutionary psychologist who continues to publish academic papers trying to show that cranium size dictates intelligence. With this, Rushton conducted "research" of measuring skull volume and skull size to support his fallacy that some "races" as he asserts, are of "superior intelligence" than others. Of course, all of his conculsions illustrate a deep racist bias as he constnatly places people of African descent on the lowest level of intelligence. And yet, his work continues to be published because some people still think that sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and the like, are legitmate schools of thought and have a basis in reality when they do not. Sociobiology attempts to create a "science" of segerating humans and pigeon-holing groups of people by attempting to say their learned behaviors and cultures are some how rooted in a "difference" in biology. It takes the "nature vs. nurture" debate and takes a steaming dump on the "nurture" and thus breeding a climate of ignorance and segregation based on "science." This published study is no different.

Here is an opinion piece regarding this topic

Links - October 24 2011

2011-10-24T08:28:00.000-06:00

Links for October 24, 2011

- Feminist Media Collective: On 'sex positivity' and misunderstandings

- IBTP: Spinster Aunt was Once Adored by Dude Nation

- No Excuses No Mercy: Hate from Reddit: MRAs in Action

- K Miriam: Branding Feminism

- Z. Bediako: BLACK OUT! At Occupy Philadelphia

- Almost Clever: Where "Feminisms" Collide

- BallBuster: #occupybaltimore discourages police involvement in sexual assault cases

- Anti-Porn Men: What is Gay Sex? Pornography Tries to Give us the Answer and Fails

- Feminist Media Collective: A lesson in how *not* to be an ally

- Elkballet: Porn Users Explain why Porn is Healthy Part 2

When Cops become Johns and Other Findings from The Missing Women Commission of Inquiry

2011-10-22T18:48:00.002-06:00

The Missing Women Commission of Inquiry opened on October 11 and continues in its inquiry as to why so many women have disappeared from Vancouver’s Downtown East End and why the police took so long to find the man responsible. This man, of course, is deranged murderer Robert Pickton.

Photo from EVE - Formerly Exploited Voices now Educating

The inquiry also set out to investigate how these women were treated by the police and legal system. The inquiry, despite many advocacy groups pulling out due to lack of funds, continues to reveal much about the the Vancouver Police Departments’ misconduct. ¹

A recent finding from the inquiry has revealed that members of the Vancouver Police Department, the VPD, forced many of the women they picked up on the East End to perform “sexual favours” in order for the women to avoid arrest. In a study conducted by Kate Shannon, it was disclosed that the VPD treated these women with “apathy, indifference or outright harassment.” The study included interviews with 255 people involved in the sex industry in Vancouver’s East End. 237 of those interviewed were women and 48% of those women were First Nations women of Canada. Furthermore, Shannon found that such incidents of police harassment and abuse made the women highly unlikely to report crimes. In her study, Shannon also found that 87% of the women interviewed said that they have experienced “absolute homelessness” at least once in their lives while one and five were living with HIV. An unsettling one in four were raped and 30% experienced violence by johns – 57% of them at least once in a 19-month period.²

Despite such alarming findings, Shannon claims she believes that the only solution to such violence committed against these women by johns (mostly men) and now by the Police (mostly men) is to decriminalize prostitution and move it indoors. Shannon told the court during the inquiry hearings that,

"The current criminalization results in enforced displacement, which as we've seen, both pushes people away from health and support services and increases the risk of coerced sex and violence." She continued, "being able to allow sex workers to work indoors and in safer indoor spaces would be really important, both for allowing sex workers to have some measure of safety, access to services and reduced exposure to violence." ³

While I agree that criminalizing those within the sex industry may restrict their access to health services and support, decriminalizing the johns and pimps will not further women's access to health services or physical safety. Moving people indoors to be purchased by predominately men will not solve anything. Also, if we know that police officers are now playing the role of the john and the cop, then who will protect these women, indoors or outdoors? How will this prevent the extensive violence committed against them by johns and pimps? Will the police suddenly begin to care and respond appropriately to the concerns of these women if they are indoors? It is doubtful and Shannon’s report suggests this. In this same report there is even a direct quote from a woman regarding her fears. She is quoted stating that she feared “police, pimps, dealers, strangers, and partners.”²Another interviewed woman warned, “once buddy’s got you in the car, you’re fucked.”

Moving women indoors may prevent them from getting into cars, but who will protect them while inside? Will it be the pimps or brothel owners who protect them from violent johns? My proposition is that rather than simply relocating these women, why don’t we challenge the men who feel entitled to purchase them? Why not challenge the racist, sexist and colonialist implications that come with nearly half of these women being First Nations women? We cannot continue to ignore the intersections of class, ethnicity, and sex when discussing prostitution. We must realize that really terrible, disgusting things are happening to women because we live in a society that thrives on exploitation, greed and male-dominance. Let us create opportunities for all, put an end to poverty and see how well prostitution survives in such a humane and compassionate climate. It wouldn’t survive in that sort of society because there would be no demand.

Prostitution has been a recent spot of interest for Canada with these inquiries as well as the hearings from supporters of decriminalizing johns. More recently there has even been several political speculators who think the recent allowed continuance of the safe-injection drug sites in Vancouver may lead to a change to Canada’s prostitution laws. However, I am unsure how women being bought like commodities are the same as providing safe needles for heroin users. Nevertheless, I stand firmly on my support for the Nordic Model regarding prostitution laws, which decriminalizes those “selling” and criminalizing those “buying.” It also provides opportunities and support services for women who want to exit safely. This whole “decriminalization of johns will prevent violence” notion is a mere mirage in that it promises those in authority, like police officers, will “protect” these women. We now see that they are not being protected by the police, in fact, they are being coerced and harassed by the police.

"Laws" created by the ruling class aside, I also support the notion of radical change to society. This change would allow a society where we would see others as valuable and worthy of respect. A society where women are not systematically raped, murdered, purchased, traded, devalued, or despised. Prostitution simply would not exist in such a world. This is because prostitution and the sex industry at large, is in and of itself , an institution. It is a product of a domination/submission paradigm that has been sustained by a laissez faire global economic system as well as a laissez faire

Notes:

1. “B.C.'s missing women inquiry opens,” CBC News, October 11, 2011, accessed October 22, 2011. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/10/11/robert-pickton-inquiry.html

2. Suzanna Fournier, “Vancouver cops forced prostitutes to perform sexual favours, inquiry told,” Montreal Gazette, October 19, 2011, accessed on October 22, 2011.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Vancouver+cops+forced+prostitutes+perform+sexual+favours+inquiry+told/5570043/story.html

3. The Canadian Press, “Pickton inquiry focus shifts to prostitution laws,” CBC News, October 19, 2011, accessed October 22, 2011. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/10/18/bc-pickton-.html

Blood Boilers for the Weekend

2011-10-21T14:30:00.001-06:00

Some folks commenting a few posts ago argued that my discussion of violence against women is "overshadowing" the violence committed against men.

I have done a bit of research since these clearly ignorant comments were published and found the StatsCan report from 2006 that documents in length, the rampant violence against women in this country through statistical trends.

Here is that link

This link will lead you to the 2006 Statscan report which is a navigable PDF document.

In the mean time, here are some old vintage ads to get your blood curdling for the weekend:

Translation: Women's wisdom is viewed as a threat...

Translation: Women's bodies are akin to filth and until they are properly "sanitized," we will devalue them as human beings.

Translation: Women are weak, less valuable and only useful when confined to the home

Translation: Women are stupid and dirty. Women must use harmful chemicals in order for their bodies to be acceptable.

Translation: Women cannot physically age, if they age, they are no longer valuable or desirable. Men, however, can age only they age "gracefully" and with "distinction."

And for the most disgusting one of all...

photos found at icanhastheinternet, wipwapweb, and foundinmom'sbasement

This Has to Stop

2011-10-18T21:31:00.000-06:00

More kids are getting bullied and more kids are killing themselves. A large number of these kids are LGBT youth and it seems to be getting worse for them these days. Another young person in Canada ended his life on Friday. Jamie Hubley was openly gay. For being open with his sexuality and having a love for figure skating, he experienced severe bullying and even an assault. Jamie was 15 years old.

This is out of control.

Rest in Peace, Jamie

NYC Slutwalk Attracts Anger over Blatantly Racist Sign

2011-10-06T21:15:00.000-06:00

**Trigger Warning**

New York Slutwalk has been stirring up some rage after photos of the event surfaced on facebook.

It all happened after a member uploaded a photograph of a young white woman with an incredibly offensive sign. The sign was the title of a John Lennon song that includes the n-word.

***

Slut Walk NYC - posted on their facebook group.

** I took it upon myself to disguise the identities of these marchers. It has been made clear that at least some of them are under 18. Although what they did was thoughtless and racist, they also have a right to personal safety. **

The thread developing below the photo itself has proven to be very racist.

**The bits I find particularly ridiculous will be bold and enlarged.**

Here is what a woman said in defense of the signage:

"This is the title of a song written and performed by John Lennon and Yoko Ono in the 1970s.You have to listen to the whole song to understand it. It is not offensive to anyone other than sexists in its entirety and was a very powerful message, then and now. I can understand how the sign out of this context would be disturbing. But I urge everyone to check out the full lyrics and listen to the song and judge for themselves."

Another woman with "TheBeatles" listed as her middle-name, jumped in to simply paste the entire lyrics to John Lennon's song. She later admitted in the same thread that it was her sign and she continued to stand by it, claiming it not to be racist.

Another woman holding the same sign at the NYC Slutwalk March on October 1, 2011

Here are more comments from white women, including the woman holding the sign in the first photograph.

"There was no disrespect, hurt, pain, or offence intended. I don't think there was one racist person there. I, the one holding the sign, though not the one who made it, would never use that word offensively. The word and it's meaning is wrong, but the sign is true. There is no contest about it. I am probably the least racist person out there. I have never even mistakenly judged someone by the color of their skin. Don't judge before you know what is really going on. I did not make the sign, but still feel wrong and sick. I apologize for being photographed with it and would like to ask for it to be taken down.
I never thought this experience could make me ashamed or hurt, or even make me cry, but it has. Anyone who has seen photos of me with it please ask for them to be taken down. ____ this is not your fault, I just don't wish to be hated for a word."

The thread goes on and becomes more racist as the backers of the sign continue to comment and dig themselves into an even bigger hole.

Now, along with the racist signage, the NYC Slutwalk facebook group photoalbum also contains a photo of a woman (clearly from a porno) with semen all over her face and lipstick smudged across her mouth. On her forehead is the word "SLUT" and she appears to intoxicated in the photo wit one of her eyes half closed while looking glassy and disconnected. Above her head reads "Max Hardcore" and as many people know, this is the creator of very violent and stomach-churning pornography. Slutwalk NYC may or may not have added this photograph themselves, but it is unlikely that their group album is open to all of the over 2,000 members. If it is open to all members then I will be concerned as to why supporters of the march would post such material. Even more alarming about this photo was its placement next to another photo of a young woman from the march. This woman also had the word "SLUT" scrawled on her forehead. Under this photo, the caption reads "before" and it is oddly placed AFTER the photograph of the semen-drenched woman which bares the caption "after."
My question is why, if NYC Slutwalk is concerned with women's liberation and creating an inclusive and safe march, would they walk alongside white women carrying a sign with the n-word on it and possibly posting a photo from a violent porn site on their group?

Disgusting.

For more on the racism at the NYC Slutwalk, please check out these:

Racialicious: Which Women Are What Now? Slutwalk NYC and Failures in Solidarity

Racialicious: Slutwalk, Slurs, and Why Feminism Still Has Race Issues

The Crunk Feminist Collective: I Saw the Sign but Did We Really Need a Sign?: SlutWalk and Racism
Akiba Solomon from Colorlines.com: More Thoughts on SlutWalk: No Attention is Better Than Bad Attention

Boner Killer Becomes "Women-Only" Space for Time Being

2011-10-01T10:33:00.000-06:00

This whole woman's only space sounds like a keen idea as, once again I woke up with anti-feminist, anti-woman, racist, sexist nonsense on my comment feed.

Truly, I am sick and tired of my blog being used as a space for angry men and sometimes even angry women feel teh menz are oppressed to the point where that they begin to abandon and deny their sisters' existence under patriarchy.

This is, as my comment policy has always stated is my space, a room of my own. Since this virtual space is mine, I will enact some boner killing legislation to establish a dude-free, women's only space.

Ironically enough, my male partner agrees with this idea. After all, he has heard me read out many of the abusive comments.

And before the sobbing and convulsing starts - this is NOT censorship. My blogger status and status as woman prohibits me from any sort of power to actually "censor" someone. Men immediately start reciting the US constitution when they are not allowed to comment or show up in women's only space. Women are often denied such space- this space is not for men to complain and degrade women. This is blog was not created for men. This is not a space for you.

So, from now or until I decide otherwise, this blog will be open to women.

Have a good, boner-killing weekend!

photo found here

Should this blog be Dude-Free?

2011-09-30T18:10:00.000-06:00

Thinking about making this a women's space - I came on here only to find various anonymous men writing about how badly a woman treated them, as if that is supposed to justify what happens to women allover the world, every minute of the day, at the hands of men. Another comment that I received actually told a female commentator that she was "fat and ugly" or something equally troll-ish and counter to this blog.

For the love of god people, READ THE COMMENT POLICY BEFORE YOU POST.

I know Twisty went down the no-dude-zone route, Should I follow suite?

Your opinions, sisters?

Oh! and just because my last post was kind of a downer, here are some pictures!

found on facebook, who is shocked ;-)

Boner Killing Hiatus

2011-09-26T16:32:00.000-06:00

Classes are picking up again and so my posts may be less regular. I swear that I will be back posting soon enough!

In the meantime, perhaps you have read something alarming as of late and could share it with me - who knows, maybe it will become a post!

Petition to Close "Win a Wife" Radio Contest Update

2011-09-16T18:02:00.001-06:00

Readers,

Here is your chance to add to the the over 1000 signatures *update* - there are now 7,339 signatures - to get this sexist, misogynistic and downright dehumanizing contest closed.

All you have to do is go here to sign

In the meantime, check out some interesting dialogues taking place at the Feminist Media Collective blog

- Why reproductive rights and prostitution are not the same thing: A response to one decriminalization argument

- Is being an Abolitionist a 'red-flag'?

-Slutwalks, sex work, and the future of feminism

Have a joyous, boner-killing weekend!

"Boner Killing" is Violence Against Teh Menz?

2011-09-15T09:24:00.001-06:00

I've just been informed by an Anonymous poster that my blog title, "Boner Killer" is encouraging and perpetuating "sexual violence" towards men.

Now that I have finished my lengthy guffaw from the mere shock of the comment, lets hear your thoughts...especially those of you who have expressed a love for my blog title.

Just for the record, Anonymous, killing a boner implies that I am taking away a boner. It does not imply that I literally take to the streets to castrate men and somehow physically overpower them. It certainly doesn ot imply that I, or any other woman for that matter, has the societal power to even walk up to a man in the same way they would walk up to us prior to an assault. This scenario would likely have a pretty rare place in our society, given how women are systematically treated by men around the world. I mean, we can't even go for a walk in the evenings without fearing rape or harassment.

But I digress. Let's get back to what "boner killer" means...

When someone refers to someone else as a "boner killer" they mean that the other person is a sort of wrecker-of-fun - someone who is attempting to destroy a man's boner or his "good time" somehow. An example of this is my blog search-terms. After the Black Swan came out on DVD, many people were searching "Black Swan Boner Killer" and this would bring them to my blog. It is likely the Black Swan was referred to this way because the film did not contain an amount of boner-inducing zest for these dudes and so they said it was a "boner killer."

Women who refuse to live up to conventional beauty standards and fail to give a rat's arse about giving dude's the jollies in their trousers are often called "Boner Killers" - that is why this blog is titled as such.

Personally, it terribly unfortunate to me that someone came here to comment and pretend that sexual violence perpetrated by women against men is a relevant concern in our world - considering how pervasive violence against women is, systematically and otherwise. This is not suggesting that men are not sexually abused or harmed by women. The large majority the of sexual abuse and assault against boys and men are committed by other men. However, this blog is about women and the realities that women face; grim realities. They are everywhere. It is happening every moment of every day, somewhere in the world.

So, to those who wish to comment (those who follow my comment policy) here is my question to you: Are men really at risk for "sexual violence" because of my desire to turn a bonerfied woody into a damp sock? Will gaggles of women take to the streets to be "sexually violent" towards men? Your thoughts...

Oh, and just a reminder, Anonymous comments do not get published - this has been in my comment policy since day one and so adequate warning has been provided.

Photo found here

"Win a Wife" from Edmonton Radio Station "The Bear"

2011-09-07T14:16:00.003-06:00

Just when you thought Alberta radio stations could not become more heinous with their blatant sexist "contests," an Edmonton radio station further lowers the bar. The Bear radio station in Edmonton, Alberta has created a contest to "win" a Russian bride. Yes, the radio station is taking part in blatant human trafficking. The woman involved in this contest clearly has no choice in who her future husband will be since, you know, she is the object being won. Contrary the Bear's perception of females at large (see their "Babe of the Day" section online) a woman is not an object to be "won" by a man through a radio station, or anywhere else for that matter. This is why there is controversy and sheer outrage coming from all over the country.

Much outrage is shared amongst those who are currently battling human trafficking, which includes the mail order bride industry. Andrea Burhart, with Alberta's Action Coalition on Human Trafficking asserts her disgust to CBC news, "I cringed when I saw it," she said, "The bottom line is that we don't know how these women are coming into this." Precisely! this contest also further asserts the idea that women are property - they are to be married off to someone they themselves did not choose.

To add to the growing dissent, Employment and Immigration Minister Thomas Lukaszuk told CBC news that he was so offended by the contest that he pulled his ministry's ads from the radio station. Despite the anger directed at them, The Bear radio station, like the Calgary station who ran a sexist contest for breast implants, won't back down under pressure. Why? Probably because we live under a patriarchal capitalist system where humans are considered to be commodities and women are considered to be chattel. If women were considered fully human, we wouldn't be sold off to random dudes who call into shitty radio stations. One such dude, 27 year old Danny Lozchuk, hopes to be the "lucky man" to win a Russian woman to be his wife, "I've been trying in Canada and Edmonton and no luck, so I'll try my luck overseas and see what I can do," he tells CBC news. Danny's statement exposes the sheer abundance of entitlement that many men hold. Entitlement not only to women's bodies, but to their livelihoods as well. Danny seems to feel that since no woman in North America has so far consented to be with him, he figures he'd have a better shot at being with woman who has no choice in the partnership. I mean, what makes for a happier, sexier marriage than a lack of consent from the woman you are marrying?

Danny, or some other dude, will "win" this woman - this human being, by the end of the month of September unless this contest is stopped. If you are as furious, offended, disgusted, and revolted by this contest as I am, tell the Bear. Contact information will be added at the end of this post. Share this blog post and spread the word so that this form of extreme disrespect for the humanity of women does not become so normalized that more radio stations hold similar contests. This contest is completely unacceptable.

To contact the Bear radio station in Edmonton:

The Bear Address

#100 - 18520 Stony Plain Road
Edmonton, Alberta
T5S 2E2

Main Number: (780) 486-2800

To get a quick response please be sure to send your questions or comments to the correct email address.

Stewart Meyers, General Manager	smeyers@astral.com
Rob Vavrek, Brand Director	rvavrek@bear.fm
Susan Reade, General Sales Manager	sreade@astral.com
Karen Paulgaard, Promotions Director	kpaulgaard@astral.com

For questions and concerns regarding contests, prizing etc.

cjunker@astral.com

To send them a tweet (or several) on Twitter, their tag is @1003TheBear

Notes:

- Quotes and information from CBC news
- Photograph from The Bear radio station