This reminds me of Tough Guise: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity, a film by Jackson Katz that looks at how masculinity is constructed, particularly in popular culture, and what that has to do with violence in the United States. Within the first minute of the film, a voice-over, seemingly a news reporter, states “police say boys, aged 13 and 11 were arrested near the school carrying guns and wearing camouflage…” right after a dialogue associating being a man with being tough. Maybe Blatchford would have preferred to see these boys with their guns than the boys who like to hug. Obviously, she’s not alone in her idealization of a tough guy, seeing as a movie was made about our culture’s fixation on it. According to the film, masculinity is constructed in terms of dominance, power and control – men are tough. If they’re not, then they have to face the threat of being accused of not being a man, like Blatchford did when she called all the boys and men of Toronto “sissies.”

In the film, one of the arguments Katz makes is that the formula [masculinity = tough] can often act as a mask or guise that men “put on” to shield their vulnerabilities from the world. In a recent trial that is gaining a lot of media attention, Dustin Paxton is being prosecuted for multiple offences including aggravated sexual assault and unlawful confinement against his former roommate, a now 28-year-old man. When asked by Crown prosecutor Joe Mercier why he didn’t leave the apartment the two men shared, the 28-year-old said, “I could have, but I would have thought of myself as a sissy for giving up like that.” The fear of being, or being seen as, a sissy informed his choice to stay. The vulnerability of not being “man” enough. Like any victim of violence within an on-going relationship, there are probably many reasons why he didn’t leave, and no matter what, what happened to him was not his fault. The threat of Blatchford’s and many others’ accusatory “sissy” made his experience specifically gendered.

The Christie Blatchford imperative for a man to be tough, the construction of masculinity in terms of dominance, power and control as outlined by Katz, was a barrier to him seeking help specifically because he was a man, and a man is supposed to act a certain way. A man faces those who would attack him. A man does not run to the police. A man is not controlled by another man. A man is independent. A man is not sexually abused or assaulted by another man. A man fights back, he does not run. These are the cultural codes of masculinity that created barriers to him seeking and receiving support.

For fear of being seen as a sissy, how many boys and men are out there who have not told anyone that they were sexually abused or assaulted by their older sister, their coach, their wife, their husband, their best friend, the frat guy after a night of partying? How many tough guys are out there, living in abusive relationships, who don’t seek help because we all have this standard about what it means to be a man? How many men are silently suffering while we perpetuate a notion of tough masculinity?

And how many men, men like Dustin Paxton, have taken on this tough guise and embraced how it legitimates violence? How many tough men are out there abusing other men and women, controlling and dominating, because that’s what it means to be a man? Well, I’ll cite the American stats that Katz uses in his film:

85% of murders are committed by men.

90% of physical assaults are committed by men.

95% of serious domestic violence is committed by men.

95% of dating violence is committed by men.

85-95% of child sexual abuse is committed by men.

99.8% of people convicted of rape are men.

So, a lot of men.

I’m going to guess that men and women who are abused by women are less likely to report, so these stats are likely slightly skewed. However, I believe they are still telling. Telling us that we cannot simply believe it’s the social outsiders, the crazed individuals, that murder, rape, and abuse both men and women in our society. There’s a social context to this violence, and one aspect of that social context is our construction of masculinity. Many people suffer because of how we view men and inevitably shape some men into actors of violence. They are both men and women. Both men and women suffer because of how we’ve constructed manliness as tough, and femininity as implicitly weak.

Those young boys Blatchford spotted who had no qualms about hugging each other in public are not evidence that men have lost sight of their masculinity, as she argues.  Rather, they are a sign that boys in our communities have the opportunity to grow into intelligent, strong, compassionate men with the freedom to show affection in public. It is a sign that the “tough guise” we construct for our boys and men might be losing its directive power so that maybe less of them will act in violence. It is a sign that the fear of being dubbed a sissy no longer has as much power, so if one of those boys ever ends up victimized by another man or woman, he will have friends to turn to for support, who possibly would hug him rather than call him names, be there for him if he goes to the hospital or to the police.

However, it is clear that the masculine standard to be tough still has influence, as is apparent in Christie Blatchford’s violent article directed against men, which would normalize and hold at the highest esteem the “tough guise.” Any boys and men who openly hug in public are engaging in a counter-narrative, in a political act, an act to show alternative possibilities for what it means to be a man. Here are a few links from men who are also opening the possibilities for masculinity to move away from the regiment of a tough guise. Hopefully Blatchford finds her way to one of their websites:

http://goodmenproject.com/

http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2011/12/21/why-i-resigned-from-the-good-men-project/

http://ryersonwhiteribboncampaign.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/fist-of-cuffs-a-response-to-toronto-city-of-sissies/

*Please note I am not uncritically recommending these websites, as I am sure there is content I do not agree with, as is true of all of things found online.

By: Meagan Simon

Sitting in the crowd, watching both government and University representatives publicly acknowledge that gender based violence is a very real and serious issue, and one that they are committed to ending, I felt hopeful at the potential change that a campaign like this could bring about. I was also impressed both the government and the University recognize that students are often valuable and untapped sources of information when it comes to innovative ways to raise awareness and problem solve. I believe this campaign is an absolute necessity given rates of violence against women in post-secondary schools. College and university campuses, although often believed to be places of enlightenment and progressive thinking, are not immune to acts of ignorance, discrimination, and misogyny when it comes to the topic violence against women. To use one fairly high profile example- At Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario in the fall of 1989, the student council took up a campus wide campaign against sexual assault through the use of the “No means No” slogan. There was a tremendous amount of backlash from many of the male students, who took to displaying banners around campus with slogans such as “No means try harder”, “No means more beer”, and “No means kick her in the teeth”.

University and college campuses around the nation are often places of rape culture: places where women are told to be cautious and vigilant at night, where women are encouraged to walk with friends or chaperones, where women are urged to be responsible and cautious when drinking and partying, where the idea of “grey rape” is pervasive, and where sexual assault jokes and inappropriate rape analogies are acceptable. For all these reasons, it is absolutely necessary for campaigns to take up the issue of violence against women, in all its forms, on university and college campuses. I commend the Government and the University of Alberta for creating a campaign that has the potential to confront the issue of violence against women in some way. However, I believe it is not solely the responsibility of the government to raise awareness and create strategies to confront violence against women; when it comes to an issue of this magnitude, every single person in our community needs to be an active participant in discussions about gender based violence, discussions that take all people and all factors into consideration. Therefore, while it is crucial to be taking steps towards eliminating violence against women on campuses, we need to remember that gender based violence is a form of oppression that is not limited to post-secondary institutions. A very large demographic of the Canadian population cannot, or does not, attend college or university, and those with little access to the resources needed to attend college and university are often those in our community who are most vulnerable to physical and/or sexual violence. The same individuals often have little access to support and services should they experience an assault. A comprehensive discussion of this issue must include a critical examination of the various ways in which oppression is intersectional. Gender based violence cannot be studied in isolation from other types of oppression; racism, classcism, ethno-centrism, ableism, and Christian hegemony, to name a few, are intimately connected not only to each other, but to physical and sexual violence as well. In order to effectively discuss and confront this issue, our entire community needs to have a holistic understanding of the various factors that are at play.

I am hopeful and optimistic that the student proposals received by the government and the University address the complexity of this issue, and that the campaign announced by Minister Ambrose and the University of Alberta is successful in confronting violence against women on campus. I also hope that its impacts are not limited to the University community, and that it can serve as a catalyst for social change by creating a dialogue around the issue of gender based violence, so that the broader Edmonton community can take up a discussion of violence against women as it exists both within, and outside of, post-secondary institutions.

By Nikki Bernier

My name is Nikki and as of October 3rd I became the newest member of the Public Education team! After graduating from the University of Alberta in 2010, I was looking for ways to continue my education and pursue my passion for social justice outside of an academic institution. I was drawn to the work that SACE was doing within the Edmonton community and I began volunteering on the SACE crisis line in March 2011, which lead me to the public education position late this past summer.
While I enjoyed the volunteer work that I was doing on the crisis line, I’m looking forward to taking everything that I learned in volunteer training into my community, and I feel so fortunate that my job is to spread knowledge and awareness about sexual assault to others. Coming from an academic background that was largely focused on reading and writing, I am so excited for the challenges and new skill set that will come with pubic speaking.
SACE is an organization that I hold in the highest regard and I am so honored to work here and to have the opportunity to speak out in my community on the issues that I am deeply passionate about. I am a firm believer in the power of public education and in the influence that taking a strong stance against oppression and sexual violence can have. I look forward to communicating with all of you through this blog, and it is my hope that we can use this site as a medium through which to speak out and take an active stance against sexual violence together!

… this image is an advertisement created to depict a domestic violence scenario to sell hair services!

Any alternative interpretation about where the black eye came from deviates from the cues we’re given in the image (haunting man in background with “I’m sorry” gift). The image was created to sell the Fluid Salon services, not to increase awareness about domestic violence and let people know where they can go for help.

This is what a creative domestic violence campaign looks like:

It is not using domestic violence to sell the World Cup (analogous to using domestic violence to sell a hair style). It is using the World Cup. The World Cup is the tool used to reach as many people as possible about the seriousness of domestic violence and the help that is available for people who are experiencing it. The two ads are very different things, with different intentions.

Using domestic violence to sell hair styling is inappropriate and trivializes the damaging impacts it has on many people’s lives.

There are similarities between the ads, however. They both include white women with dyed blond hair, bringing me to the real point of this article…

There is a problem with a lot of advertisement.

I’m not an expert, but here’s my take on things. The simplest form of advertisement is to associate your product with something else that is desirable. By the powers of association, you’ll want to buy a commodity because it is sitting right beside something else that you really love/want/fancy. For whatever reason, the Fluid ad was associating their product with domestic violence. I’m guessing that in addition to this, they were trying to use a “tongue-in-cheek” advertisement ploy, trying to make their ad either funny or controversial to make people want their services. Unfortunately, they naively thought domestic violence was the way to go.

Let’s broaden our focus for a moment. What else is the Fluid ad associating its services with? What other cues are in the ad that people already love/want/fancy that Fluid can associate itself with?

Rich. White. Blond. Thin. Fashionable. Attractive. Heterosexual.

Very popular attributes to relate one’s product with. I would say the top two things companies plop their commodities beside in advertisement are either the female body (sometimes male body too) or sex or both. But these are not just the “natural” female body and sexuality. They are the presumed attractive female body and sexuality of the elite and privileged: white. thin. heterosexual. Able-bodied. (For men, replace thin with muscular). These markers are used to sell…

Vacuums.

Toilet paper.

Milk.

Ipods.

Scooters.

Advertising standards are different in different countries, so Edmontonians might not be exposed to a back view of a completely naked woman having her butt measured for a scooter seat. Still, we are privy in Canada to a similarly pervasive influx of ads that depict white, thin, presumed heterosexual women in sexual positions or semi-nude for the purposes of selling products that have nothing to do with sexuality or the female form.

Sometimes, an ad will be more noticeably violent…

Or more noticeably about the female body rather than a female person…

Or about female sexual performance…

The basic components are the same. White. Thin. Heterosexual. Able-bodied.

There is a problem in advertisement.

Recently, an Edmonton radio station, 100.3 FM’s “The Bear”, launched a contest for their listeners to “win a wife” from Russia. They’ve moved from using the image of a woman, to using a living person to increase their audience and promote their radio station.

White. Thin. Notice the woman’s face is blurred out? Any argument by the radio station that the contest is concerned with “principles of mutual consent, respect, and freedom of choice for each participant” fails to acknowledge that this is a contest to win a woman without a face; i.e. to possess, own, have, and enjoy a women without an acknowledged identity of her own.

It is directed at male listeners, although female listeners have happily jumped at the chance to win a woman as well, which reminds me that all too frequently privileged women do participate in the oppression of other women.

The prized woman right now does not exist. She is an ideal sold to a radio audience. She is a blurry faced, white, thin woman in a wedding dress, packaged as a present for the lucky winner. She is like any other image of women in advertisement, an object used for the purposes of selling a commodity, in this case, a radio station. She is a prize, something to possess and have for oneself.

Do you think that when people are buying the toilet paper or vacuums as seen in these advertisements, they really are wishing they could buy the women used to sell them?

The faceless bride is not represented as an equal participant because if she were, if this contest was truly about mutual consent, respect, and freedom of choice, then it wouldn’t be about winning. If The Bear was truly concerned with consent, they wouldn’t be using a forum for match-making that too many times involves the illegal and coercive trafficking of women and girls. If The Bear was truly concerned with equality, the contest would be about match-making two very lucky winners, not giving a prize to one.

There is a problem in advertisement.

It is a problem that most advertisements meant to depict “attractive people” usually will involve thin, white, heterosexual, able-bodied people.

It is a problem that violence against women is used to sell men’s clothing and women’s hair styles.

It is a problem that when sex is involved in advertisement, women are typically portrayed as submissive participants who are there to please men.

It is a problem that sex is used to sell basically any available commodity out there, when our own sexualities are too often condemned as taboo subjects for public knowledge.

It is a problem that a radio station thought it was a good idea to have a contest with the catch line, “win a wife,” reinforcing the archaic, and yet very much 21^st century, adage that women are property.

What came first, the idea that women are property people can own, or the use of female bodies in advertisement for the purposes of selling commodities people can own?

There is a problem in advertisement. There is more than one problem. How can we change things?

by Meagan Simon

Relevant links:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/brun0305/advertisingandsexualassaulttherelationshipbetweenadvertising,genderroles,andsexualassault/blog/

http://www.designlessbetter.com/blogless/posts/a-brief-survey-of-recent-advertising-misogyny

http://www.genderads.com/Gender_Ads.com.html

At the most basic level, a critical part of dealing with violence is to get people to talk about it. For that, I am thankful, because it’s clear from my Facebook and other social media feeds that just about everyone I know in Edmonton is talking about this ad.

However, I feel it is important to address why, as someone who works to prevent violence, this ad evoked a strong response in not only myself but in many others.

This morning on Global Morning News, Sarah Cameron, the owner of Fluid Salon, excused the approach of her ad campaign by pointing out that one of the key people involved “grew up” with domestic violence. I found this related statement on the Salon’s blog today:

“Everybody’s getting on me about, ‘well how would you feel if you knew someone who was in domestic violence?’ The producer of this shoot, the one who styled it all, she grew up in it.”

It’s unclear to me how this makes trivializing domestic violence acceptable in any way. Is using abusive imagery a privilege society now offers to witnesses of abuse? The experiences of the designer does not justify an image, created to sell salon services, that minimizes the impact of domestic violence by claiming, even satirically, that it’s not so bad if you have fabulous hair.

I also have a problem with what’s implied in the tagline: “Look good in all you do” and the relationship of that statement to victim blaming. The ad clearly focuses on the woman as the subject, as the one doing the “doing”; being a victim of domestic violence is not something that people do; it is something that is done TO THEM. This ad trivializes the trauma of domestic violence, and at the same time implies that victims choose to be abused. This ad, although it has evoked conversation, serves only to reinforce attitudes that excuse the perpetrators of violence and point the finger at victims.

I do want to acknowledge the comments made by Phyllis Jackson, mother of the designer on Fluid’s blog, who points out that verbal and emotional abuse is as harmful/or possibly more so than physical violence, and are all aspects of domestic violence. She is absolutely right, and I think that resorting to personal insults towards the salon owner and the ad campaign participants is not helpful. With that, I encourage all of the people who are speaking out, writing in, and contacting the salon to do so respectfully and without resorting to abusive behaviours. However, I do disagree with Jackson with this statement, also part of her comments on Fluid’s blog:

“In reality this is a picture on a computer or piece of paper of a woman sitting on a couch with interesting hair and a painted on black eye and a man standing behind a couch holding a necklace. With my experience on both ends of the spectrum, I fail to see how that equates to domestic violence.”

Well, I acknowledge it is possible to interpret this way (unlikely, but possible). However, in a Facebook photo album posted by Fluid Hair, screen captured here: http://tinyurl.com/3tpbflr, there is a caption by the salon underneath a photo of the model having her black eye make-up applied, and it says “hottest battered woman I’ve ever laid my eyes upon”.

For me, this is more evidence that those responsible for this campaign feel that it’s perfectly acceptable to make domestic violence “sexy” to sell salon services.

A posting on the salon’s blog from earlier today states:

“If survivors of abuse interpret this ad to make light of any abusive situation, we sincerely apologize, that was never our intent as there are people that worked on this campaign who are survivors of abuse.”

This is a start, but it’s insufficient. It sounds an awful lot like “Honey, I’m sorry I hit you, I didn’t mean to… but you know how I grew up watching my dad beat up my mom; I just lost my temper.”

Images created purely for commercial gain that make light of issues as serious as domestic violence are unacceptable, but it would seem as though that Cameron still fails to see the connection:

“To the rest of you who this has so deeply affected, we truly hope you do something to help stop domestic violence. Truly honor the survivors that you are standing up for. Unfortunately boycotting a hair salon will not accomplish this.”

Absolutely, everyone should be doing something to help stop domestic violence. But I would argue that boycotting a hair salon, does help accomplish this because it is one way for potential clients to show that they would rather their hard-earned dollars go services that do not trivialize domestic violence to sell hair cuts. I, for one, will be encouraging any non-abusive action such as boycotts or respectful letters and phone calls until Fluid Salon issues a public apology and take some direct action to compensate. The blog mentioned that anyone who goes into the salon and mentions this ad will have the proceeds from whatever services they book to go to the Edmonton’s Women’s Shelter, but isn’t that just another attempt to get clients in the door?

It’s clear to me that if Cameron really believes that her campaign was “just fine” and everyone is just being “too sensitive”, then she has a lot to learn, and I suggest that she takes steps to do so.

Sarah, here at the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, we offer customized workshops and presentations to schools, groups, or businesses that are interested in learning more about violence against women without charging fees (although we do ask for honorariums when the group can afford to pay). If you are sincere in your claim on your website that you want to turn this negative backlash into something positive like “partnerships… with appropriate organizations in this community”, I hope that you will give me a call and access our education services.

I look forward to speaking with you.

Lily Tsui, Director of Public Education

780.423.4102

lilyt@sace.ab.ca

The article also includes a statement by the Edmonton police saying that they receive several bogus calls a week. According to the police officer, some people just get a kick out of emergency personnel wasting their time and resources.

The article appears to be a non-biased reporting of the events. However, I am a bit confused about why it was written. If bogus calls to police are worth reporting on, and they happen all the time, why is this the first time in the last year I’m reading about a false report? The truth is; they usually don’t get reported because they’re not newsworthy. Most people don’t care about the weekly false reports of robbery, harassment, or sexual assault that police receive. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say they care more about what actually has happened in the world.

Without dwelling on the anomaly of why this article was written in the first place, I will address my disappointment with how people have responded to it in the Sun’s online comments section.

According to one outraged Edmontonian, the Sun’s article confirms that feminazis (they hide within social justice movements) have for years been deceiving us into thinking that women never lie about sexual assault. Obviously, one women lying about a sexual assault is unquestionably proof that the opposite is true: women always lie about sexual assault! Thus, in this fine reader’s opinion, a woman who accuses a man of sexual assault should get the same penalty a man would get for actually committing the offence.

Some good news for women: if this horrendous idea were to become reality, it’s likely you’d get off with a conditional sentence and wouldn’t have to spend time in jail anyway.

Following the post about feminazis, most commentators continued to attack women and feminists, with a few exceptions. This leads me to believe that people do care about false reports of crimes – if they are typically crimes against women. One false report and bam! People feel confident exclaiming that all women and all feminists, no wait, all skanks, fembos, and bit#ches, are liars! Therefore, the only rape myth is that rape IS a myth. According to their, um, arguments, any women who says she was raped is only after revenge, attention, or the monies. And any man that says he was raped, well… men don’t get raped.

Name calling: the clearest path to truth.

It’s evident that their tirades against women and feminists are not meant to engage in a reasonable, open dialogue about people lying about serious crimes. They are based on an intention to attack the experiences and voices of women, feminists and survivors of sexual assault. It seems pointless to address them directly, to affirm the value in women’s and feminist’s opinions and validate the experience of survivors, when their main mode of communication is the use of derogatory language.

So, for the community of this blog, let me say this. Sexual abuse/assault is a very real issue that affects nearly half of the Canadian population, both women and men. Some people might lie about it, because they think it’s a good idea for whatever reason. I wish people didn’t lie – that would make my life so much easier. However, I know that they do. People can choose to lie about most things in life. I also know that just because a few people lie about sexual assault, does not mean all or most people (women) are lying. Considering the stats, because I know most people commenting on the article cared greatly about the facts (right??), I know that most people will actually lie about a sexual assault NOT happening when it did. They keep it secret, probably because they know they’re going to be accused of lying anyway or be taken away from their parents or lose their friends or be called derogatory names, like the ones made by Edmonton Sun commentators. Or if they are male, told it couldn’t have happened because of their gender.

I feel empathy for any survivor of sexual assault, of any gender, who ended up reading those comments, and am disheartened by the thought that it could seriously impact the safety and support felt by survivors of sexual assault who want to tell someone what happened.

If you’re reading this blog:

I believe you. I believe you were sexually assaulted.

by Meagan Simon

I thought about this question for a moment. Given the conversation we had been having before, the context told me that he wasn’t asking to be flippant about the issue; he really wanted to know. This was my response:

“I can understand why sometimes people wonder if the so-called ‘less serious’ assaults should ‘count’ as much as what are considered ‘more serious’ assault. And perhaps, for some people, unwanted touch or an unwanted kiss is not a big deal and they may not consider those experiences a sexual assault. That said, would you still think those things are ‘no big deal’ if it was your daughter, or your mom?”

I remember struggling with the same issue when I first became aware of sexual violence and the definition of what constituted sexual assault. It seemed obvious that being sexually penetrated against one’s will was “way worse” than an unwanted kiss or touch. Right?

Well, except when it’s a kid. Then maybe it could be worse. And the younger the victim is, the worse it is… right?

Okay then. So what’s the equivalent of forced penetration on an adult female for a newborn baby to endure?

At this point this logic becomes absurd. The issue shouldn’t be about which cases of sexual assault are more or less serious than others. The real issue is that every single person has the right to be safe from ANY and ALL unwanted sexual contact. Unwanted touch shouldn’t just be a big deal when it’s your baby boy or your elderly grandmother. The very fact that we rank order sexual assault cases by “seriousness” is an indicator that we live in a culture that victimizes so many people that we have come to a place where we make sense of the world by describing victims as “lucky” if their experience didn’t include every single violation included in the definition of sexual assault or accompanied by significant physical injuries.

To engage in dismissing or minimizing survivors’ experiences supports a culture in which sexual assault is assumed to be inevitable and acceptable. And that is something worth fighting against, even if the battle happens inside our own heads.

By Lily Tsui

We are happy to accept any submissions addressing violence against women. Email your submissions to publiced@sace.ab.ca, or download the PDF call for submissions for more information.

When I looked at the policy outline, I had no problem with the wording. I feel like the authors are making a commendable effort to protect everyone whose chosen or presumed sexual and/or gender identity and/or expression unjustifiably renders them targets for abuse.

The recent news coverage of this policy has focused on its opposition by representatives from religious programs that operate under the jurisdiction and authority of the Edmonton Public School Board. One group posted an alert on their website to parents, which warns this policy would have a “significant, negative impact on our Logos Christian Alternative Program” (quoted from website). Their main issue is with points in the policy that state all gender and sexual identities shall be affirmed in the school environment. In their school programs they do not want to feel obligated to affirm, in their words, homosexuality. Rather, they want their teachers and principals to have the right to teach that the “homosexual lifestyle is not in accord with their Christian beliefs” (quoted from website).

The Edmonton Public School Board and the Logos Christian program are in an ideological struggle; an ideology affirming that all sexualities and genders are valued is conflicting with an ideology stating homosexuality is wrong. The truth is, this struggle is much bigger than the Edmonton Public School Board policy and will continue long after people forget about this particular issue.

Still, let us focus on the Logos Christian Program representatives’ worry that their teachers would be forced to affirm homosexuality in their classroom.

To be honest, they don’t need to worry. Any opportunity for students and teachers to talk about and explore the values in these sexual and gender identities and expressions is already restricted because of much more powerful legislation. The government of Alberta determines the curriculum teachers are required to teach in their classrooms. Nowhere in that curriculum is a lesson plan ready to be created that focuses on the affirmation of diverse sexual and gender identities and expressions. Plus, the Alberta government’s legislation, Bill 44, dictates that if teachers want to plan lessons on sex, religion or sexual orientation, they must give parents written notice. The parents have the right to withdraw their children from those classes if they wish. Thus, despite the Edmonton Public School Board’s new policy, a teacher has no obligation to talk about “homosexuality,” and if they choose to create a lesson plan about minority sexualities, they are still going to have to respect parents’ decisions to remove their children from these classes. Contrary to their worries, this new policy will not force teachers to affirm homosexuality in their lesson plans and students to hear this message. However, it will require that in their day-to-day engagement with students, parents and teachers they show respect to everyone, even those with non-mainstream sexualities and genders.

Thinking about Bill 44, I have to wonder – Do the teachers in the Logos program have to send out a notice to parents each time they wish to teach their students that homosexuality is a sin? That lesson involves both sexual orientation and religion.

Bottom line – I believe the Edmonton Public School Board’s new policy is making a positive step towards less violence and more well-being for individuals in my community. To me, that’s always a worthy goal.

By Meagan Simon

References:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Christian+program+worried+about+impact+school+policy+sexual/4934770/story.html

http://www.christianprogram.ca/home.html

But, how does music sell sex? What does music tell its consumers about what is sexy? What does music tell its consumers about a man’s sexuality and a woman’s sexuality?

When I first heard Katy Perry’s song “E.T.” featuring Kanye West, I loved it. The beat hooked me along with Katy Perry’s digitally enhanced voice. Yet, when I finally paid attention to the lyrics and thought about what they meant, my love turned sour.

The first thing I noticed about the lyrics is the glorification of male sexual prowess. With such winning lines as, “Your touch magnetizing” and “Wanna feel your powers,” the listening audience understands that Katy Perry is addressing another person who has exceptional sexual skills. In Heteronormative World, where sex is always sold as heterosexual even when it’s not (re: Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl”), we can easily assume Katy is referring to a man. To the listening heterosexual male, this means him. Still, anyone could see themselves in the role if they wanted.

Male sexual performance is being sold as heterosexual, powerful and awesome! If Katy Perry and Kanye West say so, this is the kind of sexuality that all women (presumed heterosexual) expect from good male lovers. Boys, grab your, *ahem*, pens and take notes:

-          You should be so out of this world good in bed, you’re like an alien, k? Like, supernatural, extraterrestrial, so futuristically advanced your DNA makes you superior to other men and all women.  When you infect a woman with your loving, it’s actually poisonous to her primitive DNA and will cause immanent paralysis.

-          But, that’s okay. You’re supposed to stun and hopefully render your female lover unconscious with your powerful and dangerous laser. It’s so sexy she’ll sing about it!

-          A woman wants to be controlled. See, women love a dangerous man they can’t tell is an angel or a devil. It hypnotizes then into passivity. To be a good heterosexual male you have to take charge to the point of abduction, but pretend that you’re protecting her.

-          Also, tell the woman you’re infecting that you tell her what to do. If she protests, keep repeating, “I tell ya what to do, I tell ya what to do, what to do, what to do.”

(Modified from the lyrics to “E.T.”)

The song’s message: Men should perform their sexuality in terms of dominance, aggression and violence towards women. For those men who do not fit the above outline for heterosexuality, good luck “getting a girl.” For those men who do not think of themselves as heterosexual, well, you don’t apply.

People might get confused that Katy Perry is responsible for this messaging. We cannot blame one person for a song that condones and normalizes male sexual violence towards women. We can, however, hold accountable all participating members of the music economy and wider rape culture for fabricating a male heterosexuality that reaches its ideal performance in sexual violence.

Those responsible for Katy Perry’s “E.T.” also produce, market and sell female sexuality in addition to male heterosexuality. Waving a hypnotizing medallion back and forth, they suggest to female listeners, “you will choose to be an object for male heterosexuality and you’ll love it.” Despite the possibility that Katy Perry’s public relations people would spin this female sexuality as empowerment, it is first and foremost created for the male gaze according to the terms set by patriarchy. While heterosexual men and boys circle jerk to Katy Perry’s image, women are told that female heterosexuality is dressing provocatively to impress and attract heterosexual men. Be like Katy and you’ll get a boyfriend. In the song, female sexuality is predicated on and for the dominant male heterosexuality.

Don’t believe my analysis? Well, let’s look at the lyrics of “E.T.” one more time. Girls, if you want to learn from Katy and Kanye, hear are your tips to be a good, sexy female. Your tips come second because your sexuality comes second. Listen:

-          Your sexual pleasure is dependent on what your man can do for you. He’ll use his magic, bath his Ape in your Milk Way and probe you. You’ll love it so much you faint.

-          Look for a man that makes you afraid. It’s the dangerous ones that have the most magic in their touch

-          The only power you have in a sexual encounter with a man is to demand he perform. You can demand he kiss you, but you cannot be the one doing the kissing.

-          Sex for you is about a man taking something. You want this.

-          You want to be abducted. You want to be a victim of violence.

(Modified from the lyrics to “E.T.”)

At which point we come to the lyric that caused my feelings towards this song to spin feverishly towards anger. While the entire song sells heterosexual violent male dominance and female subjugation as fantastic/fun/sexy sexualities you’ll want to perform yourself, the particular line, “Wanna be a victim,” explicitly names it. It makes sexual assault sexy and reinforces the statement, “rape is a complement.” According to these lyrics, perfected male heterosexuality is achieved when a man becomes a rapist and perfected female heterosexuality is achieved when a woman becomes a rape victim… Anger, disgust, betrayal, shame, despair felt at this reinforced reality.

Why do we buy into songs with these kinds of lyrics? Because these oppressive lyrics reflect and reinforce the oppressive systems of heteronormativity, patriarchy and rape culture we and the song are already a part of. “E.T.” is just one of many moments in our lives where things are the way they are because that’s the way they are and the fact that I’m raising such a big stink about it is uncalled for.

Not only does sex sell music, music sells sex. People (men) in power (with money) are selling patriarchal, heteronormative sexuality by packaging it in the form of music. If a transgender  person, a gay person, or anyone who does not identify in terms of sexual and gender binaries, ends up buying the music, that’s a happy expansion of the market. The music industry produces male sexual violence and female sexual victimization for their listeners in an alluring package of bass, melody and semi-nudity.

Can I buy something else, please?

by Meagan Simon

“E.T.” by Katy Perry feat. Kanye West

[Kanye West]
I got a dirty mind
I got filthy ways
I’m tryna Bath my Ape in your Milky Way
I’m a legend, I’m irreverent
I be reverand
I be so fa-a-ar up, we don’t give a f-f-f-f-ck
Welcome to the danger zone
Step into the fantasy
You are not invited to the otherside of sanity
They calling me an alien
A big headed astronaut
Maybe it’s because your boy Yeezy get ass a lot

[Katy Perry]
You’re so hypnotizing
Could you be the devil
Could you be an angel

Your touch magnetizing
Feels like I am floating
Leaves my body glowing

They say be afraid
You’re not like the others
Futuristic lover
Different DNA
They don’t understand you

Your from a whole other world
A different dimension
You open my eyes
And I’m ready to go
Lead me into the light

Kiss me, ki-ki-kiss me
Infect me with your love and
Fill me with your poison

Take me, ta-ta-take me
Wanna be a victim
Ready for abduction

Boy, you’re an alien
Your touch so foreign
It’s supernatural
Extraterrestrial

Your so supersonic
Wanna feel your powers
Stun me with your lasers
Your kiss is cosmic
Every move is magic

Your from a whole other world
A different dimension
You open my eyes
And I’m ready to go
Lead me into the light

Kiss me, ki-ki-kiss me
Infect me with your love and
Fill me with your poison

Take me, ta-ta-take me
Wanna be a victim
Ready for abduction

Boy, you’re an alien
Your touch so foreign
It’s supernatural
Extraterrestrial

[Kanye West]
I know a bar out in Mars
Where they driving spaceships instead of cars
Cop a Prada spacesuit about the stars
Getting stupid ass straight out the jar
Pockets on Shrek, Rockets on deck
Tell me what’s next, alien sex
I’ma disrobe you, than I’mma probe you
See I abducted you, so I tell ya what to do
I tell ya what to do, what to do, what to do

[Katy Perry]
Kiss me, ki-ki-kiss me
Infect me with your love and
Fill me with your poison

Take me, ta-ta-take me
Wanna be a victim
Ready for abduction

Boy, you’re an alien
Your touch so foreign
It’s supernatural
Extraterrestrial

Extraterrestrial
Extraterrestrial

Boy, you’re an alien
Your touch so foreign
It’s supernatural
Extraterrestrial