I new the Conservative government in Canada was bad news for women's rights. Still, knowing the progressive nature of Quebecois people, I hoped that the Conservative patriarchal agenda wouldn't be able to penetrate Quebec. But money talks everywhere. Canwest News reports : "The federal government has allotted nearly $355,000 to help reduce sexual violence, in part by promoting self-esteem and "solid values" among Quebec girls. The latest grant announced by Helena Guergis, minister of state for the status of women, is for a $144,361, three-year project in the Matane region "targeting the hypersexualization of girls as a root cause of dating violence."" I have to say that I haven't seen a statement quite as offensive for a while. Why are girls more in need of "solid values" than boys? If we want to prevent sexual violence, why do we target girls? Are they the ones who perpetrate violence? Or are they to blame for acts ov violence committed against them?
In spite of the seemingly feminist rhetoric about reducing sexual violence, the real goal of the project is to create a "purity drive" similar to the one that has been inundating public education in the US. The Canadian government feels somehow threatened by young women being in charge of the manifestations of their own sexuality and wants to exercise control over female sexuality. Here is the definition of the concept of hypersexuality provided by governmental aggencies: "Mansour [director of communications for Guergis, minister of state for the status of women] defined hypersexualization as a social phenomenon in which adolescents adopt attitudes and bearing that are too sexual for their years. Examples are young girls who wear clothes emphasizing the shape of their bodies or very young, immature adolescent couples who become sexually active in response to the influence of peer pressure, the Internet and mass media." Note how nobody cares about controlling the way men dress.
The idea that dating violence has anything to do with the way women dress is extremely offensive. After they make such statements, any attempt by the government to deny that they engage in victim-blaming cannot be believed.
In spite of the seemingly feminist rhetoric about reducing sexual violence, the real goal of the project is to create a "purity drive" similar to the one that has been inundating public education in the US. The Canadian government feels somehow threatened by young women being in charge of the manifestations of their own sexuality and wants to exercise control over female sexuality. Here is the definition of the concept of hypersexuality provided by governmental aggencies: "Mansour [director of communications for Guergis, minister of state for the status of women] defined hypersexualization as a social phenomenon in which adolescents adopt attitudes and bearing that are too sexual for their years. Examples are young girls who wear clothes emphasizing the shape of their bodies or very young, immature adolescent couples who become sexually active in response to the influence of peer pressure, the Internet and mass media." Note how nobody cares about controlling the way men dress.
The idea that dating violence has anything to do with the way women dress is extremely offensive. After they make such statements, any attempt by the government to deny that they engage in victim-blaming cannot be believed.
10 comments:
The progressive nature of Québécois people is more and more of a myth lately.
"Hypersexualization of girls" is the wrong target, in my view. There is a problem that runs parallel with the "hypersexualization of girls," the lack of sexual education in elementary schools (since 2000, if correct) and high schools (since 2005). The education reform that was initiated under the Parti Québécois and perpetuated by the Parti Liberal stipulates that sexual education concerns everyone, so it should be taught in every courses: mathematics, history, science, languages... For example, a history teacher may teach the sexual liberation movement in the 1960s, in the context of the "Révolution tranquille," to stick with Québec's case. An art teacher may teach the standards of beauty, and how they fluctuate in different periods.
Although in theory this sounds really nice (sexuality concerns everyone, in all aspects of our lives), my personal experience with such a pedagogical approach led me to think it is flawed. You can't focus on sexual education when you teach mathematics or chemistry. When I taught Spanish in a Montreal multicultural public high school, I once ask my student to recreate a little catwalk in the classroom. The idea was then to show images of top-models (men and women) and discuss the beauty standards, all of this in Spanish. My ultimate goal was also that my students had some self-awareness of how they dress in the parade. The education reform would love such an initiative. But sorry, I just do not know how to discuss sodomy with teens in an elementary Spanish class. They need a sexual education class for that.
So the point is that rather than blaming "hypersexualization," we should bring back sexual education in elementary and high schools, as a course with its schedule and all. Kids and teens need it more than ever. To finish up with another personal experience, I had friends in high shcools who desperately needed sexual education, I emphasize: desperately. It was a good thing to have a teacher talking about contraceptive methods and masturbation with them.
Ol.
I agree! A comprehensive sexual education class is crucial. But if Harper's government goes further along this road of battling "hypersexualization", it will end up with abstinence-only sex ed promoted in Bush's America. And we all know what a disaster that is.
Ugh. Heaven forbid we talk about the real root cause of women being sexually abused by men... which is the attitudes of the men doing the abusing. Because that would be man-hating, right? (Of course, blaming women for every bad thing that happens to them isn't woman-hating at all.)
My dad thinks Harper is amazing... he's his number one fan. (Of course my dad is also a white, heterosexual, cissexual male, and privileged in almost every other sense you can think of.) I was crushed when he got reelected. I hate to say it, but I think that having so many left-wing parties is a problem (at least with our current voting system... I'm very pro-reform). The differences between the NDP, Libs and Greens are small compared to the difference between any one of them and the Conservatives, and the three parties combined got far more of the popular vote. I don't like the idea that one can 'waste' a vote, don't like the idea of strategic voting, but I can't help but wonder what our country would look like if everyone who shudders at the sound of "Prime Minister Harper" had just picked one party and gone with it. Not just for the last election, but the one before, too. I think we would be in a slightly more rational, intelligent, free place, and probably more importantly, be building some momentum in a better direction.
Canadian politics is a fascinating topic. I am still to meet someone who supports Harper in my entourage: family, friends, workplace. Canadian politics is even more fascinating then, since Conservatives became some sort of unexplainable Others in my mind.
Apparently, a Canadian government formed in coalition is not an option, as the governor general decided. The planned alliance from the left (NDP) and the centre? centre-right? centre/centre-centre left? liberal party (with the support of the Bloc québécois, a left-wing party) was not conceivable. This is a decision that hurt me more than Harper's reelection. And because of the nature of our political system, the greens have no representation whatsoever.
In Quebec, Jean Charest's horrendous conservative kindred spirit government may hold the power for another decade. This is possible because of the internal flaws of our political system and because the independence issue blurs the "logic" of progressive and conservative voting. No wonder why Quebec partakes in Harper's fight against hypersexualization. The ideological acquaintances are strong between Charest (a former leader of the PPC) and Harper.
The problem is deeper than a fragmentation of the progressive vote, as you can see. I agree with Nadine that we badly need a reform. I genuinely think our democracy would be less flawed.
Ol.
"My dad thinks Harper is amazing... he's his number one fan. (Of course my dad is also a white, heterosexual, cissexual male, and privileged in almost every other sense you can think of.) I was crushed when he got reelected."
- Are you me?? This is the story of my family, too. :-)
I agree with every word you say, Nadine.
"I am still to meet someone who supports Harper in my entourage: family, friends, workplace. "
-Maybe I should introduce you to my father, Oli. :-) You will see how a well-educated, intelligent, nice person constructs an argument in favor of the Conservatives. It requires a lot of work to convince oneself that Harper is a good thing for Canada.
"Apparently, a Canadian government formed in coalition is not an option, as the governor general decided. "
-I never even understood why it works this way. I thought a coalition was a very positive thing, and then this person comes along and destroys everything.
Interesting. I find a majority of immigrants from FSU to be socially conservative. In the States they vote republican... And many are downright racist...
So, Ol, go to "The Kremlin" :) :)
V.
"I find a majority of immigrants from FSU to be socially conservative. In the States they vote republican... And many are downright racist..."
-Totally. The things I heard after Obama was elected...
Your father, Clarissa? I would love to see how someone builds an articulated argument in favor of Harper!
The Kremlin? I should go out more often...
Of course, I can hardly see how Ukranians could vote for Ignatieff...
Ol.
Enough conservative bashing already. They are the legit governing party of Canada, elected through the same process that gave us 12 years of Liberal Chretian backroom deals and corruption!
For years I've heard nothing from the Left except the "hidden" agenda of the Conservatives! It's been 6 years already!! How long will they 'hide' their 'real' agenda!
Enough ranting on that - on to the announcement the post relates to. Couldn't agree with you more! It's an assbackwards, archaic and irresponsible approach to violence against women.
You don't need to spend $300K+ to tell women, "think about where you go, who you go with and the image you present. Think of self preservation and take rational steps to protect yourself. Now, let's move on to the roots of violence. . ."
Post a Comment