Good grief, more of this shit?

Sometimes the lack of actual thought in this world seriously baffles me. Yesterday the Huffington Post published an article about former MP Ujjal Dosanjh, who tweeted about the horrific gang rape in India. Dosanjh tweeted the following:

"Absurd 2blame female dress 4 rape. If men unable 2control penises, they shud have them removed #delhigangrape"

 He went on to say (the Huff Post didn't cite where he said this) that "Obviously this issue is much broader and wider than the Indian case. Usually men blame women for the way they dress and I just wanted to put it succinctly to show the absurdity of the position."

I agree with half of what Dosanjh says, the half about women not being responsible for their assaults. What I don't agree with, and what makes me incredibly angry, is that people are having emotional knee-jerk reactions to this rape and they're saying things that are not only untrue but completely dangerous to the progress women and men have made when it comes to perceptions of sexual assault. The Huffington Post's tweet about their own article called Dosanjh's statement "bold" and I saw multiple retweets that applauded his sentiment. I understand the impulse to wish harm upon rapists, I think it's natural and can be a really helpful coping mechanism. This is not what Dosanjh has done. This is not a bold tweet, it is an incredibly stupid and incredibly revealing tweet about how ignorant people can be.

He, like many others(especially those who have no been exposed to the daily and often extreme violence which victims of sexual assault survive), has decided to take a "stand" against sexual assault in the worst way possible. In an attempt to be "supportive" without educating himself about the issues of assault he has attributed the gang rape of the Delhi student, and all rape and sexual assault, to lust. It doesn't matter how many penises you castrate, rape and sexual assault have absolutely nothing to do with sexual desire, sexual impulses, or controlling either of those things. Rape and sexual assault are always about power and control. You can only be an ally, you can only be part of the solution, if you know what it is you're fighting against. We aren't fighting against men who can't control their dicks. We're fighting against the GLOBAL inequality of women that leads to men feeling entitled to the control and denigration of women's bodies. It's a fight against people wielding power and control over women, men, and children not for bodily pleasure but because they feel entitled to the position that inflicting that kind of hurt puts them in. Castrating a rapist doesn't address systemic inequality. Castrating a rapist doesn't take into account that his penis has nothing to do with the crime.

This specific instance of idiocy is a great example of the way reactions have been pouring out in the media, facebook, twitter etc about this case of rape.It is a horrible crime, unimaginable to some. But the fact is that for some people it is all too imaginable, and not just in India. The Huffington Post article goes on to say that it in India it is "common for women to be blamed for sexual assaults, which in turns means few report it to authorities. Those who do find police often do not take their cases seriously. Politicians and decision makers in India regularly suggest that women should not go out at night or wear "provocative" clothes."

This statement could be said for any country in the world, at any time. Remember how Slutwalk started? When a Toronto Police Officer told women not to dress like sluts if they didn't want to be raped? This isn't an uncommon sentiment and the idea that women "ask for it" is not a rare response to sexual assault. Not so long ago it was legal to rape your wife in Canada because the law recognized a woman's husband as her master. What about the Christie Pits groper this summer? What did the police tell us? They told us to be alert, dress a certain way, don't go out after a certain hour etc etc. Mayor Rob Ford's niece tweeted that women should not dress like a slut if they don't want to be groped.  All things women need to do to protect themselves and "not ask for it." Women in Canada and the U.S also don't report their rapes and assaults because, guess what? Cops often don't believe them and the trauma of having to try to get police to believe you is sometimes too much for someone to bear. It isn't as easy as going to the police station, reporting your rape, and the bad person goes away. You have to give statement after statement, you have to describe what you were wearing, how they took it off, how they hurt you. Then you have to do it all over again in court. Then your rapist gets like two years in prison. In a perfect world where racism, sexism, and classism didn't exist everyone would report their assaults. In a world where there is so much inequality and so much discrimination it makes perfect sense to me that people choose to keep their assaults out of the justice system. The justice system in Canada, the U.S,  and India all have one thing in common: they are not designed for the comfort and security of victims of assault and rape and they have all been built on sexist assumptions and stereotypes.

After the Delhi rape a woman was gang raped in Thunder Bay and left for dead. So where are the tweets about that from our politicians? Where is the outrage? How dare a former MP of BC tweet something so ill-informed about rape when he used to represent a province famous for the murder and rape of indigenous women, which was essentially allowed to continue for years because authorities didn't care about the victims? This is not support for rape victims. This is not support for progressive legislation. This is emotion unfocused and set upon a world that doesn't need any more muddled ideas about sexual violence.

So let's just stop it with the "things are so bad in India" thing because we all know things are just as bad here. Let's also stop going with our gut reaction: you may wish your rapist had his penis cut off to punish him, but the idea that castration could stop rape perpetuates misconceptions we can no longer afford. Let's stop applauding every man or politician who turns their noses up at the Indian Gang Rape and calls for change while they totally ignore all other violence against women, all over the world.

Finally, a car just for women!

There are a lot of products on the market "just for women." Some of them are necessary such as, you know, tampons. Some of them are kind of necessary like just for women back packs that have a narrower strap so they don't pinch your side boob when you're hiking. The rest of "just for women" products are basically useless and exist to grab cash from women, who will apparently pay extra for something stamped with a flower or something that smells like a tropical rain forest under their armpits.

Some of my least favorite products for women include anti-perspirant (because you actually can't buy deodorant for women) which I wrote about here : "Because nobody wants to be with a girl who is careless about her underarm odor." The ad campaign for this particular product (which is a "motion sensor underarm anti perspirant) wanted to remind women how much they move by making them wear jingle bells on their wrists all day. Shudder.

There's also the new Bic for Women! A pen designed specifically for a woman. I haven't written about that at all, partly because I was away and partly because I was just like fuck that, I'm not writing about a pen for women.

Another product I can't stand are razors for women. In "Gillette: the choice of women, girls, and pedophiles everywhere" I looked at how this craze for women's products is starting younger and younger and how women's products mainly just capitalize on sexist fears around women's bodies. Hey, 12 year old girl, better shave those legs unless you want someone to think you re DISGUSTING. Right?

There are trillions of products for women that are pink. Pink computers, pink phones, pink headphones. You  name it, there's a pink one for the ladies. Superfluous, unnecessary, transparent, and sexist are basically all of the words that come to mind when I see any "for women" product and today I came across a new one: The new Honda She's, a car for women.

A CAR FOR WOMEN.

The website is in Japanese, so you'll have to use the translate function but here's the general gist of it: this is a car just for ladies. Ladies who don't work. Ladies who use their cars to jet off to the coast and buy flowers in their pink skirt. Ladies who want "adult-cute".

What are the special "women only" functions of the new Honda She's? Well She's' trim is all pink, pink stitching, it has a pink interior, but it can also be bought in 'eyeliner brown'.The really annoying thing about this car is that the windshield blocks 99% of UV rays and they've created a new AC system that is meant to improve air quality within the vehicle. Why would that possibly be annoying?  Air quality and UV rays in a car are serious issues but the Honda She's isn't interested in anything serious (how could She? She's a lady after all) and these new features are sold as being "anti-aging." Anti. Aging. Car. Apparently women don't care if the UV blocking windshield protects their skin or eyes, they'll buy it because they're told it will guard against premature wrinkling. And the new AC system isn't touted for its allergen decreasing, pollution halting filters but rather for "improving" your lovely porcelain skin.

If you want a pink car, that's great. Go buy yourself a car and get it in pink. Spend the extra cash and even get some pink trims if you feel like it. Cars are just like any other personal product and people want (and should be able to) customize them however they want. This isn't about pink. It's about how companies target women using sexist stereotypes about what women want. As a woman who drives a lot I don't want a car that everyone is going to stare at. When I used to have to drive in Northern Ontario on lonely isolated highways, surrounded by big trucks, I wouldn't have wanted to have a pink fucking car that looked like a blown up toy because that just seems unsafe to me.  I don't want a car with a sassy trim. I want a car that has a seat belt that doesn't cut my arm because I'm petite. I want a car that has an airbag that isn't going to cut my head off because I weigh under 120lbs. I would love a car that had an AC system that increased air quality and I would love a car that had UV protection in the windows, because those are things that everyone would want. Driving is serious. Being a driver is serious. Have a nice car, add some personality to it, but this ad campaign makes it seem like women drivers don't need safety features and also that they don't exist in the world of actual driving.

I have read pretty  much every review of the She's that's been written so far and not ONE of them mentions a single safety feature. Normally when a new car is released the reviews focus on the exciting aesthetic features, the comfort, the luxury but I have never read a car review that didn't mention a safety feature at all. This is why I don't like products for women. When you buy a car you should know everything about it. You should like how it looks, how it feels, and you should understand how it works and how it's going to keep you safe. Different cars are safe for different terrains. Some cars aren't good for certain areas. Some cars are designed for cities, some for country. If all of the reviews of this car (and the website) ignore the features of a car that would normally be selling points what it's saying is that women who are going to buy this car ONLY care what it looks like and in the world of cars that should never be encouraged. Buy this pink car because you're a lady and ladies love pink! All you need to know is that it's soooo cute!! Who cares about anything else? Caring about safety will give you wrinkles! Is the seatbelt actually just a silk ribbon that you can tie into a pretty bow? Maybe the airbag could just be a gigantic powder puff. Perfect!

Women are not children. A pink car for women, whatever. But a pink car for women that only publishes anti-aging features and trim colour infantilize women and sets a dangerous precedent not only for acceptable ways that companies can sell cars to women but the kinds of cars they can sell to women. 

Why Toronto will never solve the problem of gun violence

Last night The Agenda's topic was "Targeting Gun Violence", an appropriate topic after the several gun related tragedies Toronto has suffered this year and in years past.  The Danzig shooting this summer seemed to be the tipping point, prompting the Mayor to puff out his chest and demand that gangs stop terrorizing his city. "This is about gangs and gang violence" he said. "The criminals" were wrecking our fair city and we needed to use every legal means to curb the violence. One of his solutions was to "ban" people who are convicted of gun crimes, which I wrote about HERE and to make gang life "miserable." I don't believe that we can solve gun crimes by villainizing gang members, who are often people with so few options or resources that a gang is the only way to survive. I don't really think we can take a huge, complex issue and boil it down to a few bad gang apples ruining Toronto for everyone, which is what brings me back to The Agenda.

A show on "Targeting Gun Violence" could be interesting but when I went to the website to see who the guests would be I was annoyed but not surprised.
Here are the guests listed:

• Bill Blair: Toronto Police Chief
• Dr. Gary Slutkin: Founder and Executive, Cure Violence
• Alvin Curling: Fmr Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario
• Peter Sloly: Deputy Chief, Toronto Police
• John Sawdon: Executive Director, CTI Canadian Training Institute and Breaking the Cycle
• Irvin Waller: Criminology Professor, University of Ottawa
• Lekan Olawoye: Executive Director, For Youth Initiative

Every single one of these guests has a unique point of view on violence and many of them work directly with under serviced communities and have done work on reducing violence, they are all perfectly qualified guests for this show and I'd be interested in hearing what they all have to say. My issue with this list of guests is that the show didn't bother to find one single woman to pipe in.This isn't just about token women, it's about acknowledging the fact that women experience gun violence in different ways than men and their opinions and knowledge have to be taken into account in any discussion on gun violence and that there are innumerable qualified women who head organizations and write academic work on violence reduction.

So Rob Ford wants to ship out foreign gangsters who bring guns to our city and people claiming to want to get to the bottom of the issue ignore 50% of the population. These are two small reasons why we will never solve the issue of gun violence in Toronto. That may seem pessimistic but it's just honest. How can we attempt to solve such an enormously multifaceted problem when public discourse and policy are based on such simplistic ideologies? When it seems totally acceptable to only have men on a panel about gun violence? When we only view the issue from our little Toronto lens?

Somebody said to me yesterday that it was alright to just have men talk about gun violence because "men get shot more than women" and that women can't discuss guns without becoming hysterical. It is true that men are killed by guns more often than women, but that doesn't mean that women aren't killed by guns or hurt by them, threatened and coerced with them. And did men just drop out of the sky? No, men have mothers. Irregardless of who is being killed by guns, communities suffer afterwards. Mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters, grandmothers may not be getting killed on the streets of Toronto by gangs as much as their husbands, partners, sons, brothers, and grandsons but that doesn't mean that gun violence doesn't touch their lives deeply. When we don't included women in the conversation around gun violence then we aren't serious about understanding the issue at all. Toronto is the home of so many anti-violence movements, including the United Mothers Opposed to Violence Everywhere(UMOVE) -- a presence at most anti-gun events and comprised of women who have lost their children to gun violence, amongst others. Internationally, organizations against gun violence have been primarily organized by women, such as the International Action Network on Small Arms.

We also can't just focus on gun violence as being gang related. If the issue of violence in Toronto is going to be truly addressed it has to be looked at as part of a bigger picture. Yes, gun violence on the streets of Toronto is a problem but it isn't disconnected from the culture of violence produces the men who are sexually assaulting women in our neighborhoods. It also isn't disconnected from the men who abuse their partners, who use their registered guns to intimidate and threaten them. Criminals are not just young, black men and the culture of crime and violence is pervasive.  The culture of masculinity and male privilege is something we have to address across the boards. How can we say we are dedicated to ending gun violence when our government has eradicated gun registry? The gun registry was developed specifically to address gun violence against women (read more here) so why is it being dropped? Because law-abiding citizens shouldn't have to register their guns? Because we trust the general population with their guns? It is based on the underlying assumption that the general, gun-owning population (read: white men) aren't going to use their guns for evil, that the "real" problem is the unregistered crime guns (read: black men). This is crazy. Violence against women and children happens at the hands of all men, regardless of their colour or class and if gun violence is an issue we actually want to start understanding we have to face this.

Not only did The Agenda program lack women but it lacked a true presence from the Toronto communities most affected. Lekan Olawoye, the  Executive Director of For Youth Initiative is an important voice for youth in under serviced areas but the program has two representatives from the Toronto Police, why not throw in some more community members?

Gun violence isn't just about gangs, criminals, bad boys. It's about systemic violence, discrimination, poverty, power and masculinity. It can't be solved with more police(because Toronto also seems to have a problem with police brutality). The Agenda seems like a small thing to be annoyed about, but it's an example of how we approach complicated issues in problematic ways.

Myths of Men and Women. Or: Myths of Men, because what they say about ladies is true.

Yesterday the Metro News published an article written by Julia West entitled "Myths of Men and Women: He said/She Said, How to overcome gender stereotypes in the office."

"Gender stereotypes can be a severe hindrance to your work", writes West. A stereotype is something commonly believed or accepted but that rarely reflects reality. Gender stereotyping can completely hinder your work and your career advancement because any decision based on a stereotype is defined as discrimination. In Canada, discrimination is illegal. It is illegal to discriminate against somebody based on something that should not factor into your decisions: race, religion, age, sex,gender, sexual orientation, ability. Discrimination violates the Ontario Human Rights Act, the right to be free of discrimination is part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and most businesses have policies around discrimination at work.

When I read the first sentence of her article I was encouraged. I thought maybe it would outline processes around dealing with discrimination or solidarity building tools for workplaces.  I was wrong. I was very, very wrong.

What I thought I was about to read was something along these line: "gender discrimination still happens, it's a big problem, and it's bad. So, here's how to fight it."

What I actually read, was this: "[gender stereotypes] also distract from serious issues and affect a person's comfort level. "Women who unwittingly adhere to gender stereotypes are less likely to be taken seriously for their abilities and contributions."

The article is essentially a How To Guide on "Proving Stereotypes Wrong" and the first piece of advice to women is to from Brenda Fiala, a Strategy SVP at some company: "Be Excellent...Set for yourself an expectation of delivering excellent work, and strive to do it positively and consistently," she says. When you're a good employee it gets noticed, regardless of sex."

Oh really? How interesting! I guess that explains the pay equity gap : women just aren't as good as men at their jobs, which makes it an individual problem and not a systemic one. Problem Solved! Thanks lady!

 Another business lady/author adds to the advice:  "Your role...is to contribute to the success of the business.  If you are not doing that first, you will be hard-pressed to blame gender discrimination."

That is because we live in a Meritocracy, a society in which the only thing holding us back is ourselves. If you are a dedicated, talented, hard worker than you will be rewarded and be successful. Right? Pull yourself up by your boot straps, get yourself off the ground, get back on the horse. We are supposed to be able to get what we want by working for it but, in reality, there are invisible(and not so invisible barriers) to our success. Sure, if you're a shitty employee you probably can't blame gender discrimination, but by definition discrimination is actions that are baseless and not informed by facts which is why discrimination is illegal. People realized that no matter how hard they worked, or how much better they were at their job than their colleagues, they weren't advancing. They were given more of the crappier work to do, got less recognition, less pay, and less opportunities for raises and promotions. That's because "being excellent" can't stop discrimination. Being an excellent worker, doing your job, "contributing to the success of the business" doesn't mean anything because the people who are evaluating you and who are in control of your well-being are only looking at one part of you, in this case they're only looking at the "woman" factor.

When Julia West writes "it's time to stop stereotypes in their track and move forward" she doesn't mean stop stereotyping, she means women need to stop being so stereotypical. "If there's a stereotype that you find offensive or degrading, simply don't perpetuate it." Resist your natural urge to gossip, because women are stereotyped as gossipy. "Maybe you know someone who insists that female bosses are moody or rash?" Well, in this case you shouldn't report them to your superior,you should prove them wrong by being "a strong leader by laying out expectations clearly and giving direct feedback." This advice isn't problematic because it's stupid, it's problematic because it assumes that stereotypes about women being bitchy, moody, irrational, and catty are true and that it's a woman's responsibility to "unlearn" these things. This flies in the face of decades of evidence that shows that certain groups of people are less likely to make equal pay, advance through promotion or salary raises, or even be offered job positions.  Individualizing a systemic issue doesn't stop gender discrimination, it allows it to become more entrenched because we ignore the true causes and effects of it. Acknowledging discrimination IS moving forward, what West and these other businesswomen have done is take a huge step backwards.

West's final piece of advice is about the "important of an appropriate wardrobe." No, seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, or as she puts it "a vital contributor to the company" you have to "look the part." Don't dress like you're "going out" you should dress in attired that you are comfortable in but that build confidence. "This doesn't mean dress like a man--it means keep it clean." Ohhh, I'm not making as much as my male colleague because I dress like I'm going to a club instead of going to work? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most professional women have to deal with sexism so much that they are hyper vigilant about their business attire.

Women aren't discriminated against because they're naturally dumb shits and have historically proven that they can't work like men can. Women are discriminated against because they have been systemically oppressed and shut out of the public work sphere for centuries by institutions like the Church and State who benefit from having a group of people to do unpaid domestic labour.

That this article ran so nonchalantly in a paper with huge circulation is a testament to how ingrained sexism and gender discrimination still are.  Metro News should be ashamed that they ran something so insipid and uninformed, and Julia West should be ashamed that her name is on an article that sounds so ignorant.

This song isn't about sexual assault at all!

I was listening to some Top 40 Radio this afternoon. Usually I don't listen too carefully to lyrics because generally speaking they're idiotic in Top 40 music. Today, though, my ears couldn't help but hear some lyrics that made me feel a bit.. awkward.

Apparently there is a new song called "Kiss you inside out" by the band Hedley. Not only is Hedley just plain offensive because their music hurts my ears, but these lyrics are bizarre:

I don’t know if you’re ready to go
Where I’m willing to take you girl
I will feel every inch of your skin
And you know I can rock your world 

Let's start here, shall we? If you aren't sure whether or not your "girl" is "ready to go" where you're "willing" to take her, then you have a problem.  You will feel every inch of her skin? Well, maybe you should wait until you know whether or not she wants you to? Just because you're some whiny sounding pop singer with neck tattoos doesn't meant that what you're saying is less threatening.

Turn off the lights
Take off your clothes
Turn on the stereo
Ouuu oohhh
Give up the fight
I’m in control
Why don’t you let it go.

What? Give up the fight?! There's a fight? This is what I don't get about pop music. This shit is aimed directly at the wallets and hearts of pre-teen girls and what this song is telling them is that it's romantic when a guy pushes you to "give up the fight" and just accept that he's "in control" and so you might as well just "let it go." Guess what, this scenario is called sexual assault! This guy is turning on the stereo because he doesn't want his neighbours to hear this poor girl screaming, most likely.

Just close your eyes and shut your mouth
And let me kiss you inside out.

Shut your mouth?! How are you supposed to kiss someone back, say yes, or express any kind of pleasure, when you have your mouth shut? This is just so fucking creepy. These are 30 year old men singing about a woman just lying back with her eyes closed, mouth shut, letting whatever is happening just happen to her. You sell your music to children, Hedley! You sell your music to young girls who are already vulnerable to sexual assault and date rape! How can you be so irresponsible? Not only are you hideously untalented musicians you're also embarrassing human beings.

I don’t care if you steal all my air
we can breath in together as one
it’s all right if you’re here every night
waking up with you in the sun
we start with an hour and we find we waste the day
kicking back with the love we found.

Oh right, because sexual assault is a great precursor for a loving and long-term relationship. He's only assaulting you because he loves you! Having sex when you don't want to is just what you do in a relationship! Just lay back and take it, unless of course you don't want to have a boyfriend. What the hell kind of message is this?

let me love you, let me love you
let me love you babe. 

Ah yes, because sex is always equated with love and someone who says they love you could never hurt you, right?

How, in 2012, a band comprised of adult males can get away with lyrics like this is beyond me. How do they exist in society and not realize that what they're saying is not only fucking disgusting but it's describing something that is against the law. I get it, pop culture is rape culture. Our mainstream media is saturated with things that normalize sexual assault and sexualize women and girls.Sometimes I just forget, for a moment, how blatant these messages really are until I turn on the radio or the TV and get smoked in the face with a song about date rape.  Men who sing to girls have a responsibility to not just write or perform conventional music about female sexual passivity. The fact that this kind of music is still being performed just goes to show exactly how much artistic creativity actually exists in our mainstream music: zero. That this group got up and sang this song at the MMVAs, so a crowd of thousands of screaming twelve year old girls, solidifies their position as men who are part of the problem. 

Maybe try trading your silly tattoos, vintage t shirts,and counterculture haircuts for something that is actually different and radical: standing up to a music community that normalizes and naturalizes sexual assault. Or, you could continue just being an annoying, entitled, totally oblivious band of insignificant assholes.

Is this the most tasteless ad you've seen all day?

Apparently a new Harvey Nichols advertisement for a big sale is getting people all worked up.

The ad, with the tag line "The Harvey Nichols Sale... Try To Contain Your Excitement," features male and female models in fancy outfits with... wait for it.. PEE running down their legs! Get it? They're so excited about the sale that they peed in their silky, silky pants.

The ad even prompted this from the Huffington Post Canada:

Funny coming from the Huffington Post who often runs tasteless material on their website and their title page(like this little number.) But, who cares who writes it, are these really the most tasteless ad campaigns you've seen all day?

To be perfectly frank, they certainly are not the most tasteless ads I've seen all day. In my opinion, they don't even come close to being tasteless. I actually think the ad is funny. Here's a bunch of posts featuring ads that are super tasteless, like men having sex with women who have pictures of cars over their faces, or jokes about domestic abuse. Advertisements consistently and without fail sexualize, racialize, and demean women while simultaneously creating an unrealistic vision of beauty that no human can live up to. In light of this, I'm surprised that a little bit of pee is getting people upset. Anyone who has witnessed a big sale knows how crazy people get: they rip things out of one another's hands, they hit eachother, they swear, and I wouldn't be surprised if they peed their pants once in awhile.

How about this for the most tasteless ad, Piranha "3DD." I see it every single day in the TTC Stations and on the trains where the posters are perfectly lined up to the eyesights of children. I guess the difference here is that we're looking at tits and we know that the piranhas are going to rip this lady to shreds, which is totally normal!

People, it's pee. Calm down.

Gillette: The choice of women, girls, and pedophiles everywhere.

Although it isn't technically summer just yet, those of us who are in Toronto right now are experiencing a bit of a pre-summer heat wave. Yesterday was a high of 32.2 degrees and today is supposed to climb to the high 30s as a well. Add humidity and unconditioned apartments and what you'll get is about a billion extra people out in the parks trying to stay cool. Pants are no longer an option, unless you're trying to sweat out a fever. In this kind of weather you've got to be wearing shorts or else you will hate your life and become cranky at everyone in it.

Shorts season can mean very different things to very different people. Style! Comfort! A chance to expose your clammy legs to some sunshine for awhile. For Lorenzo in Christie Pits, shorts season means that he can walk around staring up girls' shorts while he enjoys his tall can of beer. For that dirty old man riding his bike past you, it means he gets to say repugnant things about your vagina, then scream at you when you ignore him.  If you're wearing shorts in the city it's likely that you'll have some crazy person say something nasty to you at least three times a day, to which you'll maybe smile at and try to escape in the hopes that that person won't throw the foul liquid they're clutching in the sun-damaged 7UP bottle into your face.

Shorts season is a hard enough time of the year for women which is why it particularly bothers me to see the hair-removal industry ramp up its advertising visibility right about now. What the company is saying to you is this: if it is 30 degrees plus humidity outside today don't you dare wear shorts unless you first sit in your tiny, stifling bathroom and shave every last hair from your legs. EVERY, LAST, HAIR. And why? Because if you're going to wear shorts you have to be beautiful, and being beautiful means being hairless.

This time of year they have extra ammunition because it was "Winter" and now it's "Summer". This means that women have been lazy allllll season and have amassed an old growth forest of body hair. This particular ad describes it as "winter fur" and apparently men have it as well. The body hair removal industry has found a great customer in men: there are an entire menu of men's services as salons now, including male Brazilian waxes(which one salon lady told me once she would not do, because she didn't like "stretching" the ball skin...), chest waxing, butt waxing, etc. Anything women can have, men can have it too. For men, though, it often seems like more of a choice-- a lifestyle, if you will.

 

  For women, it's a constant barrage of images and messages reminding you that if you have even a bit of hair on your legs or your armpits, you are so disgusting.My favorite spokesperson for annoying women's products, Jennifer Lopez, illustrates this message: "Be the Goddess of Summer!" Being the Goddess of Summer is made possible by Gillette Venus, which is "easy to use". Effortless, natural. Because not only should you be hairless, but it should probably look like you didn't work very hard to get that way. Gillette Venus is so easy to use that now you can finally enjoy the beach! Hurray!! God Forbid you didn't pack a razor for the beach house, because that means you'll have to stay inside or wear pants and a long sleeved shirt the entire time. That is called oppression. Your body hair is oppressing you, so free yourself you lazy bitch! When you remove the hair from your legs you'll also be revealing the natural "shine" of your skin and a hidden tan. Ta-Da!

I've started noticing these little tiny Facebook ads that are like "shaving tips for girls!" and when you click on it you realize that they really do mean girls and also that you've stumbled into some kind of pink and mauve hell. It is someone's job to create new customers. Sure, women buy razors forever, but what you really need is to get them buying earlier and longer. The perfect target: CHILDREN! What better way to sell razors then to make little girls think that a) Shaving is a rite of passage b)is necessary if they want to be confident and successful,ever and c) that their pre-pubescent legs are as hairy as they should ever get. 

The website features "Tips", presumably based on questions from real girls, about shaving. "When do I shave for the first time?" "How do I ask my mom if I can shave?" "Should I steal her razor and shave secretly?"  The Gillette response is almost always something like this: It's about what feels right for you and makes you feel confident and beautiful. Venus razors give you a close shave, so you can flaunt smooth, beautiful skin no matter what your routine is."

Apparently, if you want to be beautiful and confident your only option is shaving. Nobody is surprised by this because a razor company has to sell razors. Duh. What is very disturbing, however, is HOW they're trying to sell to children. Why does a 10 year old need to flaunt smooth, beautiful skin?  The website has all of these crazy videos featuring this little girl named "Gabby" who "blogs" about shaving. Because, you know, girls should know what she knows, like right?

In this video Gabby says she just HAD to tame the hairy mess that was her legs. She's also not sure if she should tell her mom. The lesson of the video is that your mother knows best and that girls should learn how to be women from their mothers. Interesting, Gillette. Capitalizing on the myth of the perfect, feminine mother. What if your mother is an alcoholic? What if your mother abuses you? What if you don't have a mother! We can ignore all of these variables because the message is what matters: if you are normal you have a mother who will explain how to shave, if you aren't then you should pretend you do because otherwise you aren't normal. Also, you're a hairy little girl.

This next video was where it got extra weird. How on earth can a huge corporation get away with posting a video of a CHILD shaving her legs on the internet?  What all of these videos, culminating in this one, are doing is teaching a young girl that she is for looking at. Her legs are for looking at, which is why they can't be hairy. Her body is for looking at, which is why she has to feel beautiful and confident. Her legs are for the Lorenzo's of the world, and she should accept that early. Teaching girls that they are objects at a young age is really important if you want them to become lifelong consumers of products.
 
In the video Gabby says "shaving isn't just about getting rid of hair, it's about feeling your best. So if you're playing sports, going on vacation or just looking to wear what's cool having skin that looks good will make you feel good." Because when you're a child you should have to worry that your legs don't look good while you're playing soccer or going camping with your family? And why is that? Because you're not just your own person, little girl, you belong to the world and your legs and armpits are on display at all times. When girls start to think that their decision making isn't about themselves but how other people perceive them, they lose agency. Playing sports is fun, should be fun, and shouldn't be about whether or not you look good doing it. This is how we end up with something like Lingerie Football.

This is horrifying. Of the almost 50'000 hits this video has had, how many do you think are actually young girls curious about shaving? You know what,little girls? Instead of spending your money on razors ask your parents to start a college fund for you. Teach children valuable lessons, don't exploit their insecurities and make them jail bait.

 If you are an adult woman and you like to shave, or want to shave, or need to shave then that is your choice. If you don't want to participate in hair removal, that is also your choice. Or rather, it should be your choice but as we can see from these insane campaigns it really isn't. Why do our legs have to be hairless, tanned, and shiny? Is it really going to be SO horrible if you have some hair on your legs? Are you soooo undesirable? We live in a world where we have to buy so much shit for so many shitty reasons and Gillette is trying to convince little girls that they are sexual objects so that they will buy their stupid razors. So, if you're choosing to shave maybe choose a product that isn't so blatantly hideous and sexist. Oh wait, no company like that actually exists. Oh well, let's all just have a Slumber Party, Gillette Style! (seriously, this exists.)

Sometimes it just really seems like our lives are a George Orwell novel, shocking until we realize that he's actually writing about reality.

These Pamphleteers: Six things to do, say, and not do after your man's sports team loses a big game.

Everyone is all up in arms over this blog "While the Men Watch", which is a blog about two pretty Toronto ladies who get bored when their men watch the sports. I don't get what all the fuss is about, they've hit the nail on the head: while men watch sports, women have got nothing to do!! So they write this blog about funny sports related things and they're best friends forever.

Let's face it, women's lives revolve around their men which means that most of the time ladies are bored while their men do the things they love to do. The thing that men like to do the most is the sports. They love to do and watch the sports! Any and all sports, men are watching and doing them. This is because (and this has been scientifically proven) men have a special gene that makes them bigger, stronger, more active, and so they are biologically inclined to sports. Women don't have this gene. Women have the woman gene, which makes them more likely to be obsessed with things like fashion and eyebrows, and to despise their own body hair. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: SCIENCE!

Some people are upset. They say ladies like to watch sports, or ladies have their own lives while men watch sports, or that some ladies don't like men. These critics are what is known as FEMINISTS. Feminists are usually confused lesbians who don't shave their armpits. They have very bad haircuts and wear cargo shorts. In brief, they are crazy and really don't know what they're talking about. Also, ugly girls don't like "While the Men Watch" because they are sad and jealous of ladies who have men. 

But really, the only thing they have to be upset about is that the ladies aren't going far enough! Take, for example, their list "The 6 things NOT to say when his Team Loses." 

This list is very thorough. They discuss things like how you shouldn't console your man by saying "at least your team came in second" because the man gene makes men HATE second place. Also, women should always have a secret stash of ice cold beers for when their man is sad and they should open the beer and put it in his hand before he even asks for it. Don't ask your man to do housework or fulfill responsibilities after a big loss. Don't make him see your awful family, because your mom is probably a bitch. Most important on the list, though, are that you should never discuss how his team played or display sports knowledge and you should always, always, always have sex with your man whenever he wants to after his team loses. The ladies say even if you have your period, "under any circumstance" you have to make it happen. On bed rest because you're pregnant? Too bad, don't be selfish! Is your period making you sick and barfy? Well, tough shit. It's your job as a lady attached to a man to pre-empt his every want and desire, and desire= sex.

Seems like a fine list right? NO!  There are so many others that were left out which we'll cover here.

So, without further ado, I introduce:

These Pamphleteers: Things to do, not to do, to say, not to say, when your man's team loses the big game." 

1. "Ask your man for a pre-approved list of things you may say after his team loses."

This one is important because, as the ladies point out, saying the wrong thing is not an option. Governing yourself according to what your man wants coming out of your mouth is your job. If he doesn't want to hear it, you shouldn't be saying it. Having this list will help you avoid a divorce later on. Don't tell him that at least they came in second because "second is dirt" and if you say that, you will be dirt to him too. Some people will tell you that having to censor what you say or do in a relationship is "abuse" but those people are probably just ugly feminists who are crazy anyway. The ladies advise other women to "ease your way out of a bad loss for his team" and this is a great way to do that and it's also a great way to avoid having to hide another black eye from your coworkers.


2. "Men are similar to bears, so know your man bear Safety Tips."

 Don't surprise your man during a big game, especially if his team is losing. Make your presence known by wearing a bell so that he knows where you are at all times. Stay on pre-marked trails in your home that don't cut directly through your man's game space.  If you do accidentally traverse into game space country and your man sees you, remain calm and avoid any sudden movements. If your man pursues you, throw something on the ground(like the laundry basket) to distract him to aid in your escape. Depending on the type of man you have, if an attack is imminent you should either play dead or be loud and stand your ground.



3."Don't tell him: I don't have any pre-masticated food for you."

Your man is sad and he needs comfort. As his lady you are also his maternal replacement figure and so if he needs comfort you have to give it to him. Take a cue from mother birds and Alicia Silverstone. If you just had a baby and are still lactating, put those suckers on ice and have them ready for after the game! Nature was generous to you ladies, now be generous to your man.


4. "Kill your mother."

This may seem extreme but if you think of the big picture, the long term results will be worth it. Your man hates your mother, you hate your mother because he hates her. Like the ladies say on their list, you should never suggest seeing or dining with your in-laws after a big loss because he's too vulnerable to contain his hatred for your mother and the rest of your family. After a really big loss, for instance the Stanley Cup final, a nice thing to do for your man is to lure your mother over to the house (you can also ask some extended family to join, depending on how strong you are), and bludgeon her to death in front of him. This says to your man "even though your team lost, you're still a winner."



5. "Don't just avoid asking your man to fulfill responsibilities after a big loss, do them all yourself."

Because sports are the only important thing to men, the ladies suggest a 48 hour period in which you shouldn't nag him to do anything. First of all, ladies should never nag their men (that's just cruisin for a bruisin) and second, why ask your man to do anything ever? Your man will do the things around the house that he wants to and that make him feel manly, but ladies should do the rest themselves. If you have a job or a volunteer commitment, you should quit them because there are sports all year round. Most important is that you never acknowledge that you did any of the stuff he was supposed to do, and never ask to be recognized for it. After you've finished each job around the house, praise your man for a job well done. There's no reason you can't strap that baby to your chest and change the oil yourself.

6.  "Remember that his team winning or losing is the most important thing in the world."


This one is really the most important rule of all because it's actually how you should govern yourself all year round. Your man watching sports, or playing sports, is imperative and has far reaching effects. Don't say things to him like "I don't care about sports, women still earn 75% of what men earn doing the same job!" Don't say to him "But, I'm watching sports." Don't say to him "I don't love you anymore because you make me organize my life around you and around the sports you watch." Don't say to him "I thought you were coming to my trial today?" Sports watching is directly related to a healthy democracy and women who question that, like women who question anything, are impeding the democratic process. Don't be selfish, ladies.