Enthusiastic Consent and how "yes means yes" can replace "no means no"

I have seen a lot of news stories on consent in the past few week, and in light of the Take Back the Night march that took place here Thursday, I thought I should post about this issue now. And I should start with a trigger warning for discussion around consent and sexual assault.

The most recent news story about consent was with regards to a really terrible incident that happened in British Columbia last week. It is all over the news here, but for readers who haven't heard, a 16 year old girl was drugged and then raped by several boys and men at a party, and pictures of the incident have been spreading online, beginning on facebook. That isn't even the part that has me most outraged. The part that really makes me angry is the very public response to the photos online and even on the news. She is being called names like "whore" and "slut." Some are saying that she asked for it, or that she is exaggerating- it wasn't really rape. Some commenters have even made jokes about it, including "Cmon, whose not down for a gang bang." Someone went so far as to suggest that she is making up the rape accusation because she regrets having slept with all of these people. I can't even begin to imagine what this girl is going through right now (ok, maybe I can begin to imagine), but I am shocked at this response. Having a glass of champagne that happens to be laced with a drug of some sort does not mean that you are consenting to having sex. It also does not mean that you are asking for it. And just because women are often cautioned not to accept drinks from men does not mean that she should have known better. This is NOT her fault.

But I have some ideas about why it is happening. I can think of two reasons, one being the relative anonymity provided by the internet... I'm sure most of these commenters do not know her and do not expect to be identified, and many are just expanding on previous comments. But the more important reason- the reason we can do something about- is the fact that we live in a culture where violence against women is accepted and even celebrated.

Just look at this T-shirt (posted on socimages)

See, non-consensual sex is fine! As long as she doesn't actually have the ability to say no, right?

Here is another example, this time from the show Big Brother. The contestant who ended up coming in second place told a story about a game he likes to play. This game involves a man having his friends come into the room when he is having sex with a woman and forcibly restraining her for 8 seconds so everyone in the room can see her. When Enzo (the contestant who came in third place) asked if that was rape, Lane laughed it off. Even Britney, the only woman remaining in the competition at the time, after saying that she would kill herself if it happened to her, got involved in the description of the game and was joking around about it. As far as I am concerned, if he has done this, he should be in prison.

And there was another incident over the summer that keeps coming back to me as absolutely inexcusable. A young woman was dancing at a Girls Gone Wild party. The cameraman asked her to expose her breasts, and she refused. Another woman came up behind her and pulled down the first woman's shirt with the cameras rolling so that her breasts were captured on tape. When she found out that the incident made it onto one of the movies she decided to sue. Despite the fact that they have her on camera refusing to show her breasts, a jury decided that merely being at the party was a form of consent, and that she did not have the right to keep her shirt on in front of the cameras! Good girls don't go to these parties, and if you do, then I guess you are "asking for it."

There are so many other examples that it is absolutely ridiculous, but I'm not going to describe any more of them here because I believe I have made my point.

I have written at length about sexual harassment as well as the regulation of female bodies in previous posts, and I think this topic just adds to that discussion because it is all based on the same basic premise that women's bodies exist for men... and we need to make it clear that this is not acceptable. I think that the best way to help change this is with the notion of enthusiastic consent. Enthusiastic consent goes far beyond "No means No" and is often described as "Yes Means Yes." Having sex with someone who is not fully capable of consenting is rape. Having sex with someone who you reasonably believe would rather not be having sex at that moment is not following the standard of enthusiastic consent and should therefore be seen as rape as well.

The main difference between these two standards of consent is with regards to responsibility. In the first standard (no means no), the victim is responsible for making it clear that they are not consenting. If they do not yell, kick, fight, and scream, it can be hard to get a conviction. And it is often the case that victims of rape do not realize that what happened to them was in fact rape because they feel they did not make it clear enough that they did not want to participate or that they did something to mislead their rapist into thinking that they might have been "asking for it." If we switch to the standard of enthusiastically consenting, it then becomes the responsibility of both partners to ensure that the other is affirmatively expressing desire to engage in each act that takes place. This can get tricky from a legal perspective, but there is a great post here specifically pertaining to how this can work as a legal standard.

I'm not sure that it will stop every rape from occuring, but I do believe that enthusiastic consent would make victim blaming a thing of the past. I think that if it were adopted as the dominant standard of consent, the previously mentioned examples of rape culture would be different (if they even happened at all). The T-shirt would not be funny, the "8-second game" would end in an arrest and Girls Gone Wild would have lost the lawsuit. And if pictures existed of a girl being raped, they would be turned over to police, not posted on facebook and joked about.

It would also make sex seem less dangerous in many ways. The focus could be on pleasure and communication instead of sexuality being something that is feared and commodified at the same time. Maybe this is still too ideal of a way of thinking... maybe we are too far from that point to make the change right away, but if we start talking to our kids about enthusiastic or affirmative consent (which I plan to write about very soon), then we can hope that it is not that far off for the next generation... but I'm not sure they will get there if they are constantly being exposed to the various other aspects of rape culture.

Experiences of single motherhood and children-as-a-burden

I am a single parent, and I am trying to get to a point where I can experience being the primary caregiver for two children as just a normal part of everyday life as opposed to a burden on me... for some reason, I feel the need to note that I love my children, I love being a parent, and I enjoy their company- I am writing about the specific times where things come up that children cannot go to (or are not "supposed" to participate in)-things that children on TV sitcoms magically disappear for.

Generally speaking, it is not difficult for me to enjoy having children around as part of my everyday life- they can make a weekend more exciting and open up a wide range of activities that I can do, such as going to various parks and playgrounds, and I love a good game of tag or follow the leader on the climbing structures when they aren't too full. However, as much as I try to get away from the children-are-(sometimes)-a-burden framework that used to dominate my thinking right after my divorce, I find that various circumstances are pushing it back into my life- two main examples right now being the university and my position as a union executive.

I begin grad school this fall, and it is a small program at a small university. Two years ago, there were fewer students and 2 more course options. This year, there are basically no electives being offered due to a severe prof shortage. Anyway, the part that is relevant to parenting is my schedule. My earliest course is at 4:30pm, and I will be in class at least two nights a week until 10pm. So, I help the kids get on the bus to school in the morning and do thesis work and readings through the day (things that I could easily do at home in the evening), then the kids have to go to daycare all evening while I attend classes.

I am really struggling with whether it is ok for me to spend that much time away from them. It is important to note that their father does not feel guilty about only seeing them for a couple of hours every other week, so why do I have to feel guilty about leaving them at daycare until 10pm 2 nights a week? I think it has something to do with my youngest's "behavioral issues" that developed at school last year when i was in class until 6:00 twice a week. He stopped listening to his kindergarten teacher and refused to go to bed for me at night, and when we consulted a specific agency about the behaviors, they suggested that it was because I wasn't spending enough time at home (with no suggestion that an absent father could be partially to blame).

Combining this class schedule with mother-blaming, I've gone as far as to debate whether I should actually get a graduate degree because it might not be fair to the children... but, on the other hand, would it be any more fair to them for me to take whatever type of job I can find with my current degree (insert liberal arts joke here) instead of following my own dream and my passion to continue my education and get the job that I see myself doing for the rest of my life?


The other issue I have been having related to my children is about working on a union executive. Our union has been having regular meetings and conferences 4 hours away (driving- 1 hour flight- 7 hours by train) to combat wage restraint legislation. My university needs to be represented, and, until we find more members to step in this fall, I seem to be the only one who is willing/able to do this. My union has a policy where children are welcome- daycare is provided at the meetings and speakers often talk about how happy they are to have entire families able to attend. However, there are activities that are planned at night, which means I cannot fully participate in the activities that are taking place as "good" parents put children to bed at a "reasonable" hour. Most participants have a spouse to stay with the children while they go out, but, for the single parents (in my experience, all of the attending single parents have been mothers) who attend, things like games night and camp fires are cut quite short. I have even had to miss evening meetings where important document wording was being debated in detail.

I'm not saying that I think there should be daycare all night at these events so I can go play games night and then go drinking with my peers, I am just saying that having children has stopped me from doing things that I might otherwise be able to do. So, I now need to try and reframe this discussion and get to a place where I can get around some of these experiences where having children sometimes feels like a burden... keeping in mind that when my children are together, they are not really capable of being quiet enough for non-child-friendly situations.


So, I guess my point is that as hard as I try to not see my children as a burden, I feel like this view is being pushed back on me- and my experience is that they are my burden, not their father's.

Gendered wage gap in the media

Canadian newspapers have been taking an anti-feminist perspective regarding women and paid work. There was a recent study done by The Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action and the Canadian Labor Congress. I should start by saying that I have not yet had the opportunity to read through this 40 page report (I know, bad blogger... but I have a big test tomorrow and I am quite behind on my thesis, so I will have to finish reading it later).

Anyway, the report states that Canadian women earn 70 cents on a man's dollar. Canadian newspapers are accusing them of using incorrect data, claiming that the actual number was 84 cents on the dollar, hour per hour, because of women choosing part-time work. Women typically work fewer hours per week than men, and at different types of work. But this article blames women for making bad choices.

Women often work part-time for long periods of time, especially when they have young children, whereas men generally only work part-time as students under the age of 25. Women are believed to be naturally suited to childcare and household responsibilities, and by working part-time they can contribute to the household income while maintaining a close attachment to the home.

Another important aspect of part-time work is the discourse of chosen part-time work. Often, when a woman, especially a mother, chooses part-time over full-time work it is not because she would prefer to work fewer hours or because she does not need the additional pay that comes with full-time employment, but there are structural factors that make fewer hours the more practical choice for them at that time. For example, if a mother takes part-time work because she cannot access quality daycare services in her area, she may not have actually chosen part-time work; it was an external influence that shaped her decision. I think it is also important to note that rarely do such structural forces surrounding family life dictate whether a man/father works full-time, as it is women who are socialized to plan their lives around a family, while men are encouraged to plan their lives around a career.

Even when women work full-time, they are often not able to take on certain careers because of long hours, shift work, or a need to take time off when children are sick. It is generally not the father that stays home from work with a sick child- it is the mother. Of course, the article doesn't state any of the factors that might influence a woman's "choice" to do certain types of work. I have a possible career opportunity right now that would pay quite well, but requires a lot of traveling. If I were not the primary caretaker of two young children, I would apply for the job, and I believe I have a good chance at getting it. Because I cannot expect to find people to take care of them 4 to 10 days a month, I am instead going to graduate school in the hopes that I can find an equally good job that does not require traveling.

The article also talks about how women, who work proportionately more in the public sector, would then qualify for better pensions and maternity benefits than jobs which men predominate. If women have such great pensions, why is it that the poorest group, other than families headed by a single woman, is elderly widowed women? And parental leave can only be obtained if one has worked 900 hours in the previous year, which would be about 18 hours a week if I'm not mistaken, so, many part-timers wouldn't even qualify. And when they do qualify, it is based on a proportion of how much you made while working. This is usually 55%, but the article says many women get up to 93% of their income during maternity leave. This is misleading as 93% is the highest negotiated maternity leave by any public sector employer; it is not the norm.

The article ends by saying that we need to start by looking at the real numbers. I suggest they do the same.

blame feminism...

I have been trying to avoid talking about the Tiger Woods scandal since it first happened, mostly because I do not believe that somebody's extramarital affairs should take precedence over more important news issues on the local television news as the lead story EVERY night for more than a week, but I saw a paper on his apology that presents a position which I feel needs to be addressed.

Dr. Wendy Walsh, a clinical psychologist, blames women for Tiger's infidelity. She actually writes "How can we blame our husbands for getting wet on their way home from work when IT'S RAINING WHORES?" I detest these essentialist arguments that men somehow can't help sleeping around when women are sexually available, and it is the duty of women to be sexually chaste... I mean, it's not like women have real desires anyway, other than seeking "their fifteen minutes by kissing and telling on national television." She suggests that they need to become mothers in order to understand Elin's position... somehow having given birth will help women understand that they no longer need to be sexual.

She writes:
"Thanks to feminism, women own their own orgasm and a box of Trojans."
I thought great! That's what should be happening! But I guess I didn't read it as she meant for it to be taken, because she goes on to say that divorce and children born out of wedlock are a problem caused by feminism. Not that I think having children out of wedlock is inherently problematic, but if we were really "owning" our Trojans, most children would be planned, and teen/unplanned pregnancy, abortion and STI statistics show that this is not the case.

It makes me angry to read articles like this, especially when it is written by a woman, although I should be just as angry regardless of who writes it. It is not feminism's fault that Tiger Woods, or any other man, had an affair (or many affairs). Blaming women does nothing other than make it easier for people to forgive Tiger while demonizing all women who are not sexually conservative. I see this argument as part of a larger anti-feminist culture of victim blaming and slut-shaming. I don't think that Tiger Woods should be forced into hiding forever for his 'indiscretions' but I do not like that so many people are giving him a free pass while blaming women into tricking or luring him into sleeping with them.