The Benefits and Need of Defining through Exclusion

This blog article is in response to an article posted by Mercedes on her blog Dented Blue Mercedes, of which I am an avid follower. I was just going to respond in the comments section, but my post became more of an independent article,so I am posting it here with a link in the comments of Mercedes' article. The specific article I am responding to is titled Rocky Horror and the Holy Grail, or: The problem with Defining to Exclusion.

Mercedes has argued that when marginalized communities define themselves by exclusion it creates problems and as such, from my understanding, these newly emerging communities should instead define themselves through inclusion. While on the surface that solution sounds great and would prevent conflicts like the ones Mercedes mentioned from occurring, it also explicitly prevents a clear definition of the community itself, and thus perpetuates the marginalization of various groups within the community.

To define oneself is to distinguish and articulate how you are different from others. For example, I am a transsexual woman; I am not, and never have identified as, a crossdresser. This distinction is important because to understand who I am and thus understand the concerns and issues that are relevant to me, you must understand that I am not a crossdresser. To try and define the community of which I consider myself part of ,via inclusion to encompass me and crossdressers, is to marginalize the specific concerns of both me and crossdressers alike. We are different; to fail to recognize that difference is to fail to self-identify and thus continue the marginalization. Consider what defines the LGB community, particularly, that this community encompasses all those whose sexual attraction is not confined to the opposite-sex and is thus defined by the fact that they are not heterosexual.

This exclusion criteria is important because the only way a community can be recognized as one that was marginalized and whose rights and equality is something that needs to be safeguarded, is by saying "We are different than you and as such my concerns are not always the same as your concerns". By defining and clearly articulating that difference, or rather that exclusion criteria, the community itself draws attention to the specific needs and concerns that are unique to that community.

Defining yourself through exclusion is a fundamental and necessary fact of human existence. The real concern here is that, when defining yourself through the process of exclusion, these communities must acknowledge that that exclusion does not preclude some shared interests ,and that the exclusion itself does not necessitate conflict.

Having said all that, while defining yourself via exclusion is important in having your individual needs and rights recognized and protected, it is also important to recognize that the needs and rights of other such defined communities may coincide with some of the needs of your community. In those situations, by working together as a unit you can achieve more than you can by working independently. Translated into the specific GRS situation within the trans community, having GRS reinstated is a transsexual concern, not a crossdresser concern, and trying to say differently only creates problem; however the freedom of gender identity and expression is an issue that both transsexuals and crossdressers alike can join forces and fight for. I am not arguing that GRS reenlistment does not have ramifications on the freedom of gender identity and expression. I am simply arguing that enlisting crossdresser support for GRS reenlistment only serves to inflame the differences between the two distinct communities, and perhaps a better solution would be for the transsexual community to enlist the help of the crossdressing community to enshrine the freedom of gender identity and expression, without attaching GRS reenlistment to the agenda. Then the transsexual community, buoyed by the enshrinement of gender identity and expression can have better expected outcomes on the issue of GRS reenlistment.

Coup d'état

What does a coup d'état look like?

We have all seen the news footage of these events, lets go down memory lane... Iran 1979... The Philippines 1986... Yugoslavia 2000... Argentina 2001... The Philippines again 2001... Bolivia 2003... Georgia 2003... Ukraine 2004/5... Ecuador 2005... Bolivia again 2005 (remind me not to move to Bolivia anytime soon) .... and of course Canada 2009...

WAIT, CANADA!!??!! 2009!!! My math, history, and geography all suck, but I think that means HERE and NOW. Oh crap, why didn't I see the burning cars, protesters getting shot, and the army mobilized to seize power... I slept in today, but seriously did I miss it ALL? No. Sorry. Wrong! This is Canad; that kind of stuff doesn't happen here, we do things differently than those crazy banana republics.

Well, that is correct. This is Canada and yes we do things differently here. Here our coup d'état didn't involve guns, or mass protests, or a significant change in our way of life. In fact, it was intended on never even receiving any press, but thankfully their well-laid revolutionary plans were thwarted and it did (sort-of) make the news (in a manner of speaking). Now as Canadians we must recognize what happened, understand the purposeful, malicious intent behind it and ensure it NEVER happens again.

You are now likely wondering what exactly I am talking about and possibly even wondering what my tin foil hat looks like. However, please let me explain. First of all what I am talking about first hit the news on the afternoon of Thursday Oct 8, 2009. Here is the article. Now on first read it appears to be a fairly innocent slip of the tongue that Stephen Harper responded to in a fairly harsh manner. The particularly savvy among us would recognize the shrewd political maneuverings of Harper's minority government. To be honest, my interest in the story before an hour ago was nothing more than interest in the "meta" politics involved and the cleverness at Stephan Harper's actions in the grand scheme of things. However today with this news article, the whole tone of the story changes and you start to see the toes of the coup d'état poking out from under the blanket of deception.

Here is the situation and a relative time-line:

1. Monday October 5, 2009 Governor General Michaelle Jean refers to herself as Canada's Head of State twice during a speech given to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
2. Wednesday October 7, 2009 The Prime Ministers Office issues a statement saying that Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's Head of State, and said that the Governor General should not be referring to herself as Canada's Head of State.
3. Friday October 9, 2009 Rideau Hall launches a new website with numerous references to Governor General Michaelle Jean as "head of state"
4. Retired Liberal Senator Laurier LaPierre publicly announces that all 'decent Canadians' should accept Governor General Michaelle Jean as Canada's Head of State and that our monarchist system needs to be done away with.
   

So what does this mean? First of all it demonstrates clear "intent" on behalf of the Governor General. Monday's speech was no slip of the tongue. It was part of a clear plan to establish herself as Canada's recognized Head of State from the member nations of the United Nations. This is evidenced by the rolling out of a new website on Friday in order of establish herself as the recognized Head of State for Canada by the citizens of Canada. Remember rolling out a revised website is not the same as issuing a press release, it takes weeks or months to roll-out a new website. This time-line for quietly introducing the new website was in the works weeks before the Governor General's "slip of the tongue" at the UN.

Stephen Harper publicly denouncing the Governor General for referring to herself as the Head of State was the "kink" in her plan. Laurier LaPierre's public statement on Friday was an attempt to counter Harper's statement and try to compel "decent Canadians" to recognize the Governor General as the Head of State.

This is nothing short of scary when you consider what could have happened if nothing was said. The Governor General gets international recognition as our Head of State, through the website and other internal educational means she essentially tricks normal Canadians that she has always been the head of state, and then when it comes time that a replacement was to be appointed the trap is sprung. Who determines the next Governor General? Well the Head of State does, after considering the recommendations of the current Prime Minister. So now we have the outgoing Governor General appointing the incoming Governor General... umm the only thing that differs from a true Monarchy is the tradition of WHO gets appointed, but the reality of the situation is the same, Governor General Michaelle Jean would have started a line of Royalty.

Now you may all think to yourself "but that is impossible, we would then stop her!" But How? Legally she has the status quo of being the recognized Head of State both internally and internationally. Legally she is the Commander in Chief and is ultimately the one who holds the power to order the Canadian Military to do this, that, or the other. Constitutionally the matter would be muddied as then the distinction of exactly WHO is the Head of State is debated with Governor General Michaelle Jean having 5 years of status quo on her side.

Bottom line is we would either be forced to accept our new Queen Michaelle Jean, try and find resolution through the courts... unlikely, or have an all out Civil War, where everyone of us decides who we each believe to be Canada's Head of State, and then we all grab guns and start killing our friends and family who don't agree with us.

Never thought I would be thankful that Stephen Harper did anything, but the realization that he may well have inadvertently prevented an all out civil war (or Revolution depending on your outlook) by his political games taunting the Governor General and the Opposition to forcing an election while he was looking at a potential majority.

Catastrophe Averted, now I must make dinner, ahh what a day :)

Here Kitty Kitty....

So here in the lovely city of Calgary, Alberta, some unbelievably stupid individual thought to himself "Hey, it's 1am on a Sunday night, and since I am incredibly stupid and am pissed off that I spent yet another weekend with no date I am going to change that!!! I know, if I break into the Zoo, scale the outer perimeter fence of the tiger enclosure, and get a picture of me petting the tiger then all of my women problems will be over!!" As can be expected Monday morning greeted Calgarians with the following headlines...

Tiger Injures Man at Calgary Zoo

Oh My God. I mean seriously how STUPID could one person be? If only the tiger could have gotten at his reproductive areas, then the gene pool could have hugely benefited from this incident! Unfortunately it appears from the various news coverage on the mauling, that there isn't any explicit damage to his reproductive capabilities. We can always hope for secondary infections or at least take solace in the fact that any man that stupid will be exceptionally unlikely to reproduce.

While I know someone must not be able to reproduce as a result of their own stupidity to officially qualify for a Darwin's Award, but there is still hope, and in the mean time, I think he certainly deserves a Future Darwin Hopeful Award for all his fine effort to improve the future for us all.

Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice

So first of all, I apologize for not writing in some time. Starting up school again has altered my priorities. Now since I am approaching the 4th week of classes, I feel inclined to write again :) It has nothing to do with my 6 page paper due for 1/3rd of my mark in one class, a quiz in another and a midterm worth 25% of my mark in yet another... Yes, I love procrastination, guilty as charged. However I digress, on to the task at hand which today is Abortion.

Last week I had the express displeasure of seeing exceptionally graphic images of aborted fetuses displayed on University campus which is why this is top of mind. Now keeping in line with my outlook that perspective is everything, I attempted to resolve myself with the Pro-Life stance by setting aside my personal views and morals. My hopes were that by trying to put myself in their shoes I could gain a better perspective to enlarge my knowledge base and at the very least have a greater understanding (note understanding does not equal agreement) of their views. However I was denied even a minimalist level of understanding because of what I see as a fundamental flaw in what they desire.

Since this is a touchy subject, I would like to preface the meat of my argument with a request for clarifications on any points, or assumptions, I have made about either the Pro-Life viewpoint, or the Pro-Choice viewpoint. I will also restrict my comments to a very confined aspect of these large issues as I see this aspect as both irresolvable and critical to even attempt to understand a Pro-Life viewpoint. If there is resolution to the problem I present, I would certainly appreciate a more enlightened viewpoint and as such welcome any discussion on this. While I recognize that "God" has a place in many people's lives, I also understand that everyone's interpretation of God is personal and not necessarily subject to the laws of basic logic; as such I will attempt to present this fundamental flaw absent of morals or religion with a one largely uncontroversial exception.

Ok now that I have laid out the framework, let me proceed. Pro-Life asserts that life begins at conception and that any abortion at anytime is murder. Science largely backs this viewpoint up if you accept that life does not require anything more than the miracle of cells dividing. So if we proceed on this basis that abortion at any time is murder and should be outlawed similarly to how any forms of contraception were outlawed in the late 1800's, then we are presented with one massive problem.

What about the case of rape that results in pregnancy? How does the Pro-Life supporter deal with this situation? I find it hard to believe that anyone regardless of religion or moral thought processes (short rapists of the worst sort) would insist that a victim of rape be required to carry the pregnancy to full term, give birth, and put the baby up for adoption. Since there is required this obvious exception to the law Pro-Life people would like to have, how would they then define rape? Violent rape? Date Rape? Spousal Rape? Incest? The rape of a child? The list goes on, and then how do we determine if someone was subjected to the wide and varied forms of rape? Conviction takes too long, in some cases the would be abortion could be entering kindergarten and I don't think aborting at that time would provide any help to the victim of the rape. So *IF* someone is raped, they get an immediate abortion, and since we cannot wait for convictions, or a third parties determination if in fact rape occurred, we then need to modify the law to say that if any woman is pregnant as a result of anything they call rape then they get an abortion if they desire.

So with such a clause in legislation that prevents an abortion by choice, there is nothing stopping any woman that so desires to say that she was raped, cannot identify the attacker, washed away evidence, and delayed notifying police because of shame, thus obtaining her abortion via legal means. Since this allows any woman to decide to have an abortion by using the rape clause, why have a law banning abortion in the first place? It has no effect, no enforceability, no reason. Regardless of any other argument, it is impossible to reconcile this problem without further victimizing victims of rape, and since any sane person understands that continuing to victimize a victim of rape is absolutely not an option, then why do we continue to have this issue pop up?

So since under the legislation that would ban abortion, this rape clause is an absolute requirement, and that any form of that rape clause invalidates the legislation in question, then it seems appropriate to just let the issue die (pardon the pun).

In my experience Pro-Life supporters are predominantly members of right-wing religious groups, or have similar ideals that do not mesh with mainstream society. While you are welcome to have your own policies and "laws" internal to your group (freedom of religion), the rest of us who do not share your views have the right to not be subjected to the laws of a religion or group that we do not affiliate with. This is the same concept behind same-sex marriage. While I understand many religions do not condone same-sex marriage; they do not, and should not, be able to force society as a whole to condemn such marriages as well. Marriage is a legal term that is applied in a non-religious or moral context and so trying to govern the use of that term with religious or moral imperatives is fundamentally flawed.

I do not go into your Sunday services, or your home, or your legal documents, and force my own views on you. What you do in these situations has nothing to do with me, and as such I have no business trying to force my views on you, likewise those who fight against extending equal rights to all need to stop trying to force their views upon others in the form of secular laws.

If any Pro-Life supporters wish to respond to this and counter this basic argument against banning abortion, I welcome a religion free discussion on the matter. Absence of any response, I will rightfully assume that there is no counter to this fundamental problem and that Abortion is an inalienable right of every woman on this planet and will remain as such until science can remove the fetus from the pregnant woman and bring them to term in an incubator of some sort. Of course this would present other problems, but that is separate and distinct from forcing a woman to incubate a child because of biologic circumstances she may or may not have had a choice over.

Now, having said all that, education is something to be treasured, and as such I fully support people providing education to their varying viewpoints, but it needs to be done in a voluntary manner, not in an illegal display in the middle of a University campus. I do however commend the University of Calgary in the manner in which they dealt with the illegal display. It was mature, responsible, and respected the dignity of all involved.

Next Step for Human Rights Complaints

When Alberta de-listed both Chiropractic services and Gender Reassignment Surgery from the list of funded procedures, Alberta's Transsexual Community launched over 40 Human Rights Complaints against the Alberta Government for violating their Human Rights. Discriminating against someone because they are transsexual is against the law in Alberta. So WHY is de-listing GRS a human rights violation, while de-listing Chiropratic care simply another retarded move by the provinical Government?

The difference lies in HOW the funding cuts were implemented.

Chiropractic patients were given 3 full months (until July 1, 2009) to prepare for the elimination of government subsidy of their treatment. It is reasonable to assume that treatment for all but the most extreme acute injuries was able to be concluded and a smooth transition made by the patients to non-chiropractic treatment options that remain covered by Alberta Health and Wellness for those whose financial situation means they can no longer seek chiropractic care. 13.5 million dollars is the additional cost to the health system to provide this smooth transition.

13.5 million dollars would have funded approximately 300 GRS surgeries. GRS funding was eliminated immediately for evey patient. No time was made for alternative arrangments. Current treatment protocols were immediately halted. So the problem hinges on WHY Chiropratic patients were treated differently then Transsexual patients. Since there is none, not providing a similar transition for GRS delisting is clearly discriminatory.

The Health Minister made statements on the floor of the Assembly that assured Albertans that those in the treatment protocol, would receive funding. The Minister repeated those comments to the media outside the Legislature

It would not be right for us to now say, ‘Well, you’ve spent all this money, we’re now going to change the rules,’ ” Liepert said. “It seems to me to be unfair to have someone believe that a certain surgery was going to take place, dug into their pockets for hormonal drugs that were prescribed by the medical community, and somehow we don’t follow through on it.

The Health Minister has gone back on his word and is NOT providing this transitional funding.

Nearly three months has passed since the complaints were initially filed.The Human Rights Commission has been working closely with myself and others affected by this decision to get all the ducks in a row. The Human Right Commission legal team has been spending the last three months researching the various legal precedents that affect this specific situation.

I am pleased to announce that process has been concluded and Human Rights Complaints have been officially accepted. Alberta Health and Wellness likely has the complaints in hand this very moment and are formulating their response. As of today the Province of Alberta is undeniably spending millions of taxpayer dollars to respond to these complaints. While I can only specifically comment on my specific complaint, I believe the total number of complaints to be over 100.

At any point in time the Government of Alberta has the ability to STOP wasting tax payer money and take the moral high ground, and admit their error by reinstating funding. The legal advice they are wasting taxpayer money on is nothing more than common sense. They are wrong. How many millions of dollars will be wasted until they realize this? How many millions of dollars were wasted on legal fees with the failed ring road project in Calgary? It is obvious to anyone using their head that NO ONE would agree to have their relative’s grave desecrated and major highway built over it.

Common Sense is Free; however it appears to be a rare commodity indeed within the PC Caucus.

Good Samaritan

It can be hard to remain positive about the prospects for humanity when I am surrounded by such stupidity and greed. While stories such as this Multi-Donor Kidney Swap are rare, they still provide the much needed reassurance that the human race may not be doomed to self-extermination afterall.

It reminded me of the movie 7 Pounds. Why can't people in general realize that this is the holy grail. This is the meaning of life. People search endlessly trying to find validation in religion, their career, or their various activism activities, and what does it result in? One side of an debate works tirelessly to undermine the other side. Labels applied, names called, where does it stop? When do any of us actually stop and think about the other side. When do we take the time to reverse the situation and attempt to see things from their perspective?

People in general are never happy with what they have. They want more, they want things changed to suit them. Me me me, that is all I ever hear about now. Everyone complains that kids today are so selfish; that they don't understand what it means to sacrifice for something. They point to the luxuries today's youth enjoy and they say they are worried about the future because of that prevailing attitude among youth.

Well truth be told, the real problem is the youth of yesterday. Today's parents raised those children. Today's parents are the ones that are gorging themselves on the gluttony of luxury and convenience. Our kids have no choice in the matter. They are just living the only life they have been shown. WE are the ones with the choice. WE are the ones who lived through hard times. WE are the ones that knew life before the Internet. WE are the ones who should know better, and don't. We delude ourselves into thinking it is OK because we suffered as children. We don't realize that past suffering does not justify selfishness.

I am by no means perfect, although I do recognize that I stick out like a sore thumb. My children are in the extreme minority that I not only require them to be inside before 10pm, I expect them to go to bed at 9pm. I make my children do chores. *gasp* My children make dinner, do laundry, wash dishes (by hand), do bathrooms etc etc, and they keep their rooms generally clean. There are no free rides. I do not subscribe to the belief that my children need to be involved in a bunch of extra curricular activities. I do not subscribe to the belief that my children need hours upon hours every day to play with friends. I do not hesitate to discipline my children in front of guests or in public.

What do I hope my children gain from this parenting technique that would likely receive massive criticism from the likes of Dr. Phil and Oprah? My children know that NOTHING is to be taken for granted. They know that every freedom they enjoy comes with a responsibility. They know that in order to live a life that involves exercising those freedoms, they must first, work HARD to gain the right to that freedom, and second they must respect that freedom in others, regardless of differing opinions or beliefs. My children also rarely hesitate to help someone in need, it is instinctual for them. It is not because they have been guilted into helping because of fear of eternal punishment; not because I have told them they need to be Good Samaritans or any sense of obligation on their part. They act in that manner because they personally know how much hard work goes into the freedoms they enjoy, and as such they can't bear to stand by and watch anyone shoulder that burden alone.

I fully recognize that my parenting techniques are unorthodox. I have family members who are mortified that I have children clean up after dinner. I have had to endure having a child protection worker force their way into my home and challenge my parental actions due to misconceptions of abuse. I have had to spend time measured in days giving testimony during custody battles. These things don't happen to people who "go with the flow." One side benefit is that none of my family members want me to babysit their children, but at the same time, none of them have much of a problem babysitting mine. Hey sometimes it pays to be different.

I also had my 13 year old daughter tell me yesterday that she was so lucky to have two mom's who are both her best friend :) :) That is actually quite funny because the last thing I want to do is to try and be my children's friend. It is interesting though, that in teaching them how to live life, they have learned to respect that discipline and consider me their best friend because of it.

Remember!!!

Yesterday I had the grand displeasure of reading about Edmonton-Calder Conservative MLA Doug Elniski actions in this article by CBC. While I have come to terms with the fact that in general people are completely stupid and ignorant, I cannot fathom why they feel the need to open their mouth and infect others with their ignorance and stupidity.

While it is certainly bad enough that the people of Edmonton-Calder elected such a patriarchal, chauvinistic moron, it can be easy to be misled when you are voting on someone who has not served a previous term in office. I seriously hope that this serves as a reminder to everyone, not only in Edmonton-Calder, but in every single riding in this province. Remember what THAT person did, remember what their party did, remember every single thing that they did, and when you have 50 such incidents in 4 years then remember each and every apology that meant nothing. Remember that they are apologizing out of convenience and necessity rather then a realization that what they did was a horrible, horrible thing to do.

I am not referring to the instances where someone does something out of character without realizing the harm and apologizes because they realize what they did HURT. I am only referring to the all to common "convenience apologies." These are obvious when they are apologizing for something that is a part of who they are. They are apologizing, not for what they have done, but because they are part of the absolute scum of the earth, they know it, they just want to continue pretending for a little longer. They are trying to pull the wool over every ones eyes to conceal their true identity.

Doug Elniski is one of these people. He flaunts his male privilege, his chauvinistic attitudes, and his complete total disrespect for anyone who is not male. The fact that he actually spoke in front of a grade 9 graduation ceremony and attempted to spread his monolithic, self serving, patriarchal views is enough to require MUCH MORE then an "Oops, I didn't mean it that way, I'm sorry" Lets look at his past recent posts in public mediums to see what his character actually is, lets see him for who he displays himself to be, then we will examine his comments and the torridness of them with that perspective. I think it is important to keep in mind as we make this journey to understand the perspective from which this speech was given, that in general the face people allow others to see is FAR FAR nicer and more civilized then their true selves.

While I want nothing more then to NOT make this journey, in order to fully acknowledge the depths of depravity that these comments come from, and the EXTREME likelihood of either repetition, or worse, escalation, we must make walk down this path. So without further adu, lets get to business.

On June 13th, Doug Elniski posted on twitter

"bikini car wash 82 129 ave girls look cold (...)"

This coming from a man who has been married at LEAST 1 decade (likely 2 or 3 decades), and has THREE daughters!! This is a comment I could imagine a 17 year or, or a 20 year old making. I mean seriously, while the girls in question are obviously baring it for the intent to garner attention, and while I cannot condemn Doug for enjoying the view (although his wife certainly could, and should...), posting about it on a public forum where 387 people are "following" it is on much different level then elbowing your buddy and saying "hey look at that...." This is much closer to honking, driving around the block, leaning out the window, hollering at them, then going and pestering them to get their phone number etc. In my mind, this is near criminal behavior. Coming from a husband, father of 3 women, and an elected public official, this is SO far from "normal" that I would be terrified to have my children be ANYWHERE near him. This is very comparable to Hulk Hogan oiling up his bikini clad daughter's rear end a while back. Just plain disturbing.

Perhaps that was just a mistake, maybe his testosterone was abnormally high that day, maybe he just left Hooters, had feminine beauty on the brain and in an slightly intoxicated state accidentally violated normal behavior. So lets see the "big picture" here, maybe if we see what his other activities for the day were we can appreciate the perspective he was at in that moment...

On June 13th he also posted his speech that he gives to Junior High Students on his blog. So either he thought about Junior High Students and that put him in a leering objectifying women state of mind, or seeing scantily clad women and lusting after them made him think of the speech he gives at Junior High Schools....which ever one it is, it is near criminal and VERY disturbing.

June 13th he was also at the Pride Parade in Edmonton. Lets see if perhaps that influenced Doug Elinski's thought process. Perhaps his other twitter comments could shed some further light into his perspective and help us understand the person who made these comments...

"I am surrounded by bumping and grinding lesbians,"

Wait, this doesn't make sense, he sounds like he was participating in an orgy.... or maybe he just assumed that Lesbians were some sex crazed nut jobs that sleep with women not because they don't find men attractive, but because they exist solely to satisfy his erotic fantasies. Wow, he saw lesbians in a parade and correlated that with "bumping and grinding" and seemed to be bragging that he was watching them. Yes, Doug, they like creepy guys that stare at them. They like guys who stare at them who are married and have daughters of their own. They are there to satisfy your every desire. Maybe I can shed some light on this for you Doug, IT IS A PARADE NOT A PORN MOVIE.

So to recap, this is a man who in fairly quick succession, was fantasizing about lesbians who are not attracted to men, he was leering at scantily clad women and broadcasting that to others to come leer at as well, and then he thought about posting his speech that he gives to Junior High Students. Very, Very Sick Individual.

So now that we understand how someone like Doug Eliniski thinks, lets get to the real discussion about the speech his gives to unsuspecting, trusting, Grade 9 girls, (and boys.) This is my MAIN problem with this man. While the other actions are truly sickening, I would need to take action to see them. I would need to WANT to see what people like Doug Eliniski are thinking and saying in order to be affected by it. I seriously hope that I don't need to worry about any young women in grade 9 seeking out the thoughts of a man like that so that is not my concern. My concern is that these comments were made to young women who are just starting or are about to start the wonderful world of exploring their sexuality and starting to define their spot in the world. That these women did not make a choice to seek out his opinion, these women were subjected to that opinion. This is a SERIOUS problem.

"Ladies, always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s--t for something and has no idea what."

I'm sorry where does this jackass get off telling young women that they exist to please the men around him??!! Who the fuck cares whether or not a man (or a women for that matter) thinks he is going to get shit for ANYTHING. If they are too stupid or ignorance to know what they've done wrong why should ANYONE care. Why should anyone care if they are so self centered and think so little about those around them that they believe that when someone walks into a room scowling, it is because of them that the person is scowling. I mean get off your high horse. Whatever you do, don't tell them something like this ... "When you see someone walk into a room scowling, go and see if you can cheer them up. Make people smile wherever you go. Everyone likes someone who helps lift them up when they are feeling down." No, can't say that, that might give them the impression that they are important, and that they can make a difference, and that they can have an amazing positive influence on those around them. I guess if Doug Eliniski promoted ideals such as that he would have less women thinking they need to show off their "assets" in order to get attention, and he would have less bikini car washes to leer at, or less fuel for the porn industry to satisfy his lesbian fantasies. No people like him need to keep women down and tell them that they exist for the sheer purpose of keeping men happy. Creep.

Okay, breathe, take a step back, lets remember, perspective is important. I may be taking these comments completely out of context, lets look to other snippets from his speech, perhaps they can show us what he really meant...

"Men are attracted to smiles, so smile, don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff. If you want Equal, it comes in little packages at Starbucks."

WHAT!!! You want Equal go to Starbucks!!!, OMFG. Seriously why is this person allowed to be near young women, let along talk to them! I guess my attempt at trying to be fair and look at the broader speech simply showed that my initial impression was correct. An apology does NOT suffice here. How many graduating classes did he give this speech to? How many young women were told explicitly that their purpose was to "Smile" for Men's benefits? How many young women were told to forget about Equality and stick to the sugar packs at the coffee shop when they talked about being Equal. How many young women saw a successful, elected official, whom makes laws, display this horrible attitude. Worst yet, how many young men saw this as their role model. How many of our future law makers were shown that women are there to serve them, and that by treating women like objects, they too can succeed.

This is absolutely appalling that these actions have happened. I am terrified for the youth that were subjected to that. If my children were in that school, I would be screaming from the rooftops. Ed Stelmach has indicated that no formal discipline is being planned at this time. What better way to reinforce the message that these actions are ok, that our Premier agrees with these actions. Silence is the Enemy. Forgetting only lets this episode repeat itself.

Above all else, REMEMBER!!!