For those of you who are not familiar with the Toronto Women’s Bookstore, it’s more than just a bookstore. The TWB offers workshops, courses, readings, and other events that foster a sense of community. It is an organization that offers a safe space where women of colour, aboriginals, queer people, transgendered individuals and many others can find books and community resources. Interested in how privilege operates within our society? The TWB has offered a course called “Out of the Ivory Tower and Into the Community: Unpacking and Unlearning Privilege.” Ever wanted to learn some hot burlesque moves? The bookstore has a course in that, too.

And, in case you hadn’t noticed, there’s been a serious decline in women’s bookstores (and independent bookstores) worldwide over the past 15 years. In 1994, 125 women’s bookstores existed across the globe. Wanna know how many there are now? A meagre 21.

So, please, pretty please, if you’ve got a few extra dollars in your wallet, make a donation to the Toronto Women’s Bookstore. You can do it in person at the store, or visit their website and make a donation via PayPal. And, if you need some more convincing, you can find interesting facts, details, history and information here, here, and here.

The research into the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of midwifery is well established (though you might not know it from the Little House on the Prairie image it still has in popular culture). Researchers have amply demonstrated that babies born with the assistance of midwives (at home, in hospital or a birthing centre) fare just as well as those born to mothers cared for by obstetricians (see this recent study by Eileen Hutton on the study she conducted into midwifery in Ontario). In fact, among women with low-risk pregnancies, a home birth with a midwife might actually be even safer. Data collected by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care indicates that women cared for by a midwife are subject to fewer obstetrical interventions, such as C-sections and episiotomies. And the cost? The ministry has itself indicated that midwives save the healthcare system between $800 and $1,800 per birth.

Even though the evidence shows that the outcomes for mama and baby are just as strong for women receiving midwifery care than not, obstacles remain to women who want to be seen by a midwife during their pregnancy. For example, availability of fully funded and publicly regulated midwifery services across the country is patchy, and there are three jurisdictions in Canada that don’t offer publicly funded, provincially regulated midwifery at all: the Yukon, New Brunswick and PEI. In New Brunswick, it can cost a woman anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 out of pocket to have a midwife provide care.

Another issue is that the demand for midwives outstrips their numbers–though the growth in the profession over the past few years is considerable. Right now, there are about 500 registered midwives working in Ontario, but this is about 150 more than just a few years ago. (A personal aside: The demand for midwifery care is so intense that, when I told my doctor I was planning on having a baby, she responded, “When you find out you’re pregnant, don’t phone your husband, don’t phone your mom–phone the midwife.”). There are only 6 places in Canada where midwifery education programs are available, but the good news is that the programs are graduating larger numbers of students than ever before.

A third and very significant problem for women seeking midwifery care is the issue of hospital privileges. Obtaining hospital privileges for midwives has proven, in some cases, to be difficult. Take the case of two registered midwives who recently opened a clinic in Orangeville, Ontario. After months of providing midwifery services in the community, they still cannot get privileges to practice at a local hospital. This forces women in their care to have to drive 30 – 60 minutes away to get care from a midwife in a hospital setting. The restriction of hospital privileges completely goes against the philosophy of evidence-based decision-making in healthcare.

With fewer and fewer doctors delivering babies, midwives are prepared to step into the breach (no pun intended). But the demonstrated advantages of midwives for the entire healthcare system can only be fully realized with a coordinated effort among provincial health ministries, midwifery working groups and organized patient/consumer groups. Recent developments, such as Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care permitting new midwifery registrants to find work immediately upon graduating, is one such positive step. Canadian women need more steps like these to ensure universal, quality maternity care for all.

Getting acquainted with the Foundation has been, for me, a matter of finding out about an exciting, pan-Canadian organization that is actually really doing something for women and girls. Of course, a national organization serving women that is charity-based is a completely different kettle of fish from the publicly funded (and now dead as a doornail) NAC (National Action Committee on the Status of Women). The expectations are different, the politics are different, and the accountability is different.

Yet the criticisms that one can make of charities in general don’t really apply, I think, to the Canadian Women’s Foundation. Sure, you can make the blanket argument that charities prop up our current unequal social and economic system by plugging–and therefore sustaining–gaps that are actually inherent in the model. But in the absence of signs that that system is on its way out (and I mean sooner rather than the long, slow, troubling economic times we’re living in now), it seems to me that throwing my support behind an organization like CWF only makes sense.

After all, they are actively working towards that vision of the future that I have–the kind where women would no longer be the face of poverty, where girls didn’t start the body-loathing campaigns by the time they were seven, where violence wasn’t a reality of the daily lives of so many Canadian families.

Although it is a foundation–an organization that raises and distributes money–and therefore has the appearance of being merely a charity, it’s clear that it’s not. It’s actually a change agent, leading the way in helping Canadian women’s organizations do their work of improving the lives of girls and women. It’s concrete. It’s real. And if you’re looking for a place to put your money where your politics are, I’d suggest CWF might be the place.

The British Columbia Appeal Court provided written rationale for it’s ruling that will allow Olympic organizers to hold a men’s ski jumping event, but not a women’s event in the upcoming Vancouver Olympic games. According to the Associated Press, the Court wrote in its decision that “It is a case in which a non-governmental body (VANOC) is brought before the court as a result of policies which neither it nor any Canadian authority has the power to change,” the justices wrote in the ruling…VANOC simply does not have the power to determine what events are included in the 2010 Olympic program.”

After the International Olympic Committee (IOC) rejected the inclusion of women’s ski jumping in the 2010 games, fourteen athletes brought the issue to court as a sex discrimination case. They argued that the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) is subject to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore should not allow sex discrimination in the Olympic events it will host. The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in July that while the exclusion of women’s ski jumping is discriminatory, only the IOC has the authority to determine which events are included.

Now, what’s the rationale here, you ask, for the exclusion of this event? Could there be some kind logic at work here that would not point to good old sexism? Sadly, no:

The IOC says it will not stage a women’s ski jump event because there are not enough women competing at the highest levels of the sport. However, men’s ski jumping also does not fully meet the IOC’s criteria for inclusion but has been an Olympic sport since 1924 and was grandfathered into the 2010 games. Even if the current case is appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court, it will not be heard prior to the 2010 Olympic Games.

Share your dreams for women with the world. Send them to:

Antigone Magazine
C/O WILLA
Box 61 – 6138 SUB Blvd
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z1
OR antigonemagazine(at)hotmail.com

It’s an important history lesson for all Canadians, especially Canadian women, to know about. But it does also need to be studied in conjunction with the darker side of Canadian women’s history, like Emily Murphy‘s fondness for eugenics. She, Nellie McClung and Louise McKinney all agitated for the successful implementation of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act, which resulted in the sterilization of over 4,700 people deemed to be mentally disabled (and that includes, according to the Wikipedia entry, epileptics, alcoholics and prostitutes–plus sexual perverts, which one can only assume includes gay men).

This is a complicated aspect of Canadian history. The women who fought so boldly for the simple recognition of women as persons–persons!–really only had a certain segment of women in mind: those that matched their own white, middle-class demographic.

Adding to the mixed feelings is the story this week that saw the Famous Five becoming posthumous senators, long after they’re able to kick up any fuss in the Senate. But even if they could, whose interests would they be fighting for?

This story makes me want to jump for joy. To see an example of young people recognizing and trying to actively combat sexism and outdated gender roles gives me hope that today’s youth really can effect change in the world. One of the students even stated that children of either sex should be able to be whoever they want to be even if “guys want to be princesses sometimes.” How could I not swoon?

And then I read the online reader comments that followed the story. And I wanted to cry.

Although I’ve been around the block enough times to know how attached people are to the idea of gender and gender roles, I somehow am repeatedly shocked at how essentialist some people get. Several readers who posted comments seemed to confuse the Swedish children’s complaint as a desire to obliterate sex/gender altogether and homogenize all human beings, and many argued that there is a distinct, innate difference between boys and girls. Seriously, people, it’s the 21st century and you’re still trying to peddle that nonsense?

There’s really too much to address on this topic in a simple blog post, and, frankly, this whole discussion is so old that I can’t believe I’m even writing about it. But after having researched and written many an undergraduate psych paper on gender roles, I do know that an array of reputable psychologists and sociologists have studied gender and gender roles in children and have pretty much determined that gender is largely socially constructed. The types of toys children are given to play with, the types of clothes they’re dressed in, the types of activities they’re encouraged to pursue, and even how adults interact with boy babies versus girl babies: all that stuff makes a mark on a kid.

I don’t think the Swedish kids are calling for a complete erasure of sex and gender. I think the point is that we all need to be more mindful of how boys and girls/men and women are treated and represented and what kinds of expectations we have on each. The point is that difference shouldn’t be based on biological sex. Boys can be princesses and girls can be knights in shining armour. Get over it.

I went to an advance screening of Whip It on Thursday night and was so pleased to come out of the theatre with my expectations having been met. To be honest, I was practically giddy afterwards. While the plot of Whip It isn’t necessarily innovative, the movie is still incredibly entertaining and fiercely feminist.

Before seeing Whip It (and before being aware of the rising popularity of women’s roller derby in North America), roller skates brought to mind an image of a 1950s/’60s woman wearing a poodle skirt and skating around serving hot dogs and french fries to patrons at a drive-in movie theatre. Contemporary roller derby has reinvented the roller skate, salvaging the retro coolness associated with this piece of sports equipment and melding it with a punk rock aesthetic and athletically challenging competitive sport that makes current roller derby chicks forces to be reckoned with. Combined with the convention that roller derby players adopt rockin’, tough-girl pseudonyms (Babe Ruthless, Iron Maven, Maggie Mayhem, Bloody Holly), it’s clear that this sport is not for the fainthearted. These girls really can body check.

Whip It showcases roller derby’s legitimacy as a women’s competitive sport complete with requisite athleticism and no-holds-barred attitude. And, while some of the appeal of this movie can be attributed to the hip, retro, punk rock aesthetic that the female figures embody, the roller derby players in the movie are clearly intended to be featured as athletes who kick ass. In fact, at no point in the movie did I feel that the roller derby girls were being displayed for the purpose of male voyeurism (unlike the women in the Lingerie Football League, who act as objects that men can ogle. So gross.).

I do wonder, however, how men figure in the real world of contemporary roller derby.  In Whip It, women certainly play the dominant roles in the movie, but the team coach and the referee are both men, which hints just a little bit at the idea that men are still needed/required to regulate women’s sports. I’m not suggesting that the movie would have been better had women played these roles; I guess I’m just wondering why it ended up this way. And, for anyone who is familiar with women’s roller derby in North America, what roles do men play if any? Presumably, they must make up some portion of the fan base.

And, speaking of fandom, I think Whip It has not only converted me into a fan of women’s roller derby but also reignited my love of ripped fishnets and thick black eyeliner. Now if only I had a pair of roller skates…

And now, METRAC has joined the social media revolution. They’ve started a blog called the Megaphone Diaries. It’s brand new, so as of today, there are only a few posts, but the staff and volunteers who are going to be blogging there are keen as all hell and have got a LOT to say.  I have a feeling it’s going to be a great resource for women and allies working against violence in all its forms.

But the blog that jumped out at me most was 13-year-old Tavi Wiliams’ Style Rookie, which was featured in the New York Times Magazine last year. Tavi blogs with amazing passion and an astonishing breadth of knowledge about fashion–a knowledge that would make even Jeanne Bekker blush. But what jumped out at me most about Tavi’s blog is just how smart it is: she’s a great, funny writer, she offers heartfelt coverage of the fashion shows she attends, and she has pics and videos of herself that exploit her knowledge and experiences of fashion, rather than her body.

Social media tools offers teenage girls today endless opportunities to express themselves and their creativity. Girls who are interested in publishing, writing, photography, making videos, creative audio/radio–and finding an audience for all of this–have so many outlets that old fart Gen Xers like the gals here at Confabulous never had (that’s why we’re making up for lost time!). And that’s what Tavi is doing.

But what’s so great about her is how much she’s doing what she’s doing while still being such a normal little kid! She is a self-confessed “dork,” she has a sensible haircut and her glasses are not unlike the glasses I wore when I was her age. How can you not dig a kid like this?

I can’t embed the video here, but go here to see Tavi talking about what she did with her summer and you’ll see just how irresistibly lovely she is.

How many of us wish we could have been that confident and comfortable with ourselves at that age? By blogging, Tavi will now have a record for the rest of her life of how brave she was/is for not being afraid to be different, for using clothes to express herself and for sharing her passion with the world. She’ll never be able to hide from herself how powerful she is when she’s just being her.

Finally, much propos to Tavi’s dad, the one who chaperones her when she attends fashion shows. I think it takes a certain kind of parental bravery to allow your kid to be herself. It reminds me of a quote I read once by Ellen Page, something to the effect of, “My parents never pushed me and my parents never held me back.” Being able to facilitate your kid’s interests without getting in her way is a freaky achievement of balance, and my hats are off to those who do it. I only hope I can be that kind of parent to my daughter.

Every Thursday, Confabulous’ resident lawyer Tannis A. Waugh discusses the most interesting legal issues emerging in popular culture and addresses your burning law-related queries. Want to contest a parking ticket? Can’t help you. Got a legal question for our in-house LLB? Drop her a line at tannis [at] confabulous [dot] ca. Note: Nothing in this column constitutes legal advice in any jurisdiction and is for information and discussion purposes only. If you have a legal problem, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction immediately.

Q: We’ve had equal marriage in Ontario now for 6 years. What’s the fall out? Is there a fall out?

A: At the time of the Halpern decision, my law practice was geared towards LGBT clients. I was working with two family lawyers who, as a result of the requirements to obtain a marriage licence here in Ontario, would be retained by foreign visitors planning to marry in Ontario.

We saw a lot of people come through the doors who were excited about not just the ability to marry, but the fact that they were able to marry their partner in an actual legal way (as opposed to a commitment ceremony).

Q: But what happens if married same-sex couples split up?

A: The one thing that you don’t hear about all that often is same-sex divorce. Working in law and working with family lawyers, this isn’t really an issue here in Ontario for residents of Ontario. The divorce process for same-sex couples is no different than that of heterosexuals.

However, there is a legal quagmire of what happens to those who came up to Ontario to get married from jurisdictions that did not and do not allow equal marriage.

Think about it: if you live in a state or jurisdiction that doesn’t allow equal marriage and you want to get divorced, you are essentially asking the state or jurisdictional government to grant a divorce for something that’s not allowed in that state/jurisdiction.

Q: Well, why don’t they just go back to Ontario to get divorced?

A: Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Family law is oriented to residency requirements in most jurisdictions, which creates rules on when and how a specific jurisdiction will recognize itself as the appropriate jurisdiction to deal with a matter.  Generally, this requires one to be habitually resident for a certain period of time. So the same-sex couple in the jurisdiction that doesn’t allow equal marriage will meet the residency requirements, but their marriage isn’t recognized and are therefore unable to divorce. Conversely, in Ontario, their marriage is recognized but they haven’t met the residency requirements to get a divorce.

In New York state, the courts have recognized the validity of Ontario marriages. In this decision, heard on appeal, the court found that because the marriage wasn’t void for being in violation of the positive law (a clear statutory prohibition on equal marriage) or wasn’t incest or polygamy, it was therefore valid. While this decision wasn’t specifically about the right to divorce, it still has applicability to that process. (Please remember that I’m not a U.S. lawyer, and I got this information from general internet research, not official legal research. If I’m wrong, please correct me).

It also appears that New Jersey is recognizing equal marriage for the express purpose of divorce.

Q: So what are the options?

• Stay married. Yeah, that’s a good one. But for those who lack the means to investigate other options, it may be what happens. Keep in mind that this creates an even bigger quagmire if one of the married couple decides he or she wants to get re-married, regardless of where that would occur. The party to re-marry may still be considered a bigamist in the jurisdiction that doesn’t allow equal marriage, and they certainly would be considered a bigamist here in Ontario.
• Launch a challenge of the divorce law.  This will cost a ridiculous amount of money and even those with significant means might not have the resources to fund this kind of litigation. There’s also no guarantee that they’d be successful.  Given that equal marriage is such a politically charged issue, getting in front of a conservative judge could mean a decision that same-sex marriage means no same-sex divorce and therefore, it’s not their problem. Also, keep in mind that allowing same-sex divorce will be seen as extremely dangerous to those who oppose same-sex marriage, due to slippery slope arguments and the inherent recognition of the marriage as a legitimate marriage, even though it wasn’t allowed in the jurisdiction in which the divorce is sought.
• Move to Ontario (or the place in which you were married originally). The Divorce Act (Canada) requires a 1-year residency immediately preceding the application for divorce but again, this is an option for those with means only.

None of these are ideal.

Let’s just hope that the rest of the world crawls out of their black hole and recognizes equal marriage everywhere so this is a moot point.

Have you ever lain in bed, looked around your bedroom and thought, “You know what this room needs? A shadowy male stalker lurking in the corner.” Well, look no further! It appears that last year’s Twilight movie has sparked the creation of a life-sized decal portraying Edward Cullen’s silhouette and the accompanying phrase “Be safe.” The figure, which retails at $60 US, stands 6’2″ tall and can be applied to any wall in your home. The decal is intended to help you recreate the relationship between vampire Edward Cullen and teenage protagonist Bella Swan.

Okay, so am I the only one who finds this just a little bit creepy? In all honesty, if I awoke in the middle of the night and saw a male shadow lurking in my room, I’d be terrified. I also can’t help but be put off by the phrase “Be safe.” Like, ewww! It not only insinuates that women need male protection but also plays into the twisted notion that stalkers and overly-protective boyfriends/husbands/partners are really only trying to take care of their women.

I wonder if Vinyl Fruit, creators of the Edward Cullen decal, also make a restraining order decal. That’s really what I’d want in a situation like this.

Homelessness, of course, has its gendered dimensions, as Tracy’s story illustrates:

Tracy and her children from InvisiblePeople.tv on Vimeo.

Ready to share your dreams? Send your postcard to:

Antigone Magazine

C/O WILLA UBC

Box 61- 6138 SUB Boulevard

Vancouver, BC

V6T 1Z1

Every Thursday, Confabulous’ resident lawyer Tannis A. Waugh discusses the most interesting legal issues emerging in popular culture and addresses your burning law-related queries. Want to contest a parking ticket? Can’t help you. Got a legal question for our in-house LLB? Drop her a line at tannis [at] confabulous [dot] ca. Note: Nothing in this column constitutes legal advice in any jurisdiction and is for information and discussion purposes only. If you have a legal problem, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction immediately.

Regardless of what branch of feminism one identifies with, it’s fairly trite that a common complaint across the board is breaking down the stereotype that men only rape pretty women or women that the rapist is attracted to.

We know already that rape and sexual assault are not about sexual attraction but rather, about power and control. As such, the relative attractiveness of the victim is, of course, completely irrelevant.

Not so to a southern Ontario Judge tasked with presiding over the sexual assault trial of a man only identified as M.F. to protect the identity of his victims who were related to him.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has just overturned the conviction and sentence of M.F. for a legal error. The crown attorney, while cross-examining M.F., asked him questions about the attractiveness of his nieces which the Court of Appeal determined was a legal error that warranted overturning the conviction.

Justice Simmons of the Ontario Court of Appeal, unanimously writing for the Court, noted, “such a line of questioning would appear to be premised on a stereotypical assumption that only pretty females are sexually assaulted…there is no empirical support for such an assumption and questions about whether the appellant considered his nieces pretty were therefore wholly irrelevant to the issues at trial.

As a lawyer, I’m not entirely sure that the questioning on the relative attractiveness of the victims in question would have swayed the decision to convict in this particular case; however, the Court of Appeal decision leaves me with a lot of hope for the state of our justice system and the treatment of sexual assault victims within it.

M.F. had opted for a Judge-alone trial and the Judge did reference the questioning in the decision noting that M.F. was evasive when asking questions about pornography and the attractiveness of his nieces when referring to the credibility of M.F. Nonetheless, they were mentioned in the trial court Judge’s decision as a factor leading to the conviction and as a result, were properly found to be legal errors.

It seems to me that these comments would also apply on the flip side. In the event that a defence lawyer were to ask questions about the relative attractiveness of the victim or in the event that the accused made statements about how he could not have raped the victim because of her lack of attractiveness, such statements could not be relied upon in the reasons for judgment to acquit.

It would have been great if the original trial judge had recognized the irrelevance of the attractiveness of the victims and hadn’t thought it necessary to rely on the answers to irrelevant questions to assess the credibility of the accused but it’s pretty damn great that the Ontario Court of Appeal was so unequivocal about the fact that such an inquiry is indeed an error.

Need some examples? Well, there was this story about tens of thousands of protesters in Mali’s capital city who congregated to oppose a law granting women equal rights in marriage. There’s Bill C-422, a private member’s bill to amend the Canadian Divorce Act, which Antonia Zerbisias suggests could possibly be dangerous to women and children if passed. There’s Amnesty International’s statement about the rape and torture of men and women in Iranian detention centres. You with me here? Let’s not forget about a Marriott hotel in Connecticut who blamed (and then backed off) a rape victim for her own assault. Carleton University pulled the same stunt (as we reported last week), and then settled with the victim. The Quebec government threatened to mess with access to abortion. And, to top it all off, Muriel Duckworth died.

Okay, okay, there were some positive developments–or at least, things that hit the feminist radar that didn’t make you want to cringe. There was an election in Afghanistan, and this account talks about observing women voting (though the whole thing is still shaking down, and of course, the overall situation in Afghanistan is absolutely nothing to cheer about. It’s not clear if the articles about women not voting, expressed in this piece, have manifested themselves). The New York Times Magazine issue dedicated to women’s rights was cool. Shirley Greenberg was awarded the Order of Canada.

I’m a natural optimist and a strong believer for balance in life; I get my daily diet of news and public affairs and season it with pop culture silliness, if only for my own sanity. But this steady campaign of horror makes it difficult to cut the violence in the world with a little bit of So You Think You Can Dance Canada.

As an alumni of Carleton, I thought this was very apropos that I would get a chance to review and comment on the negligence suit that’s been brought against the university.

On August 31, 2007, a Carleton University student working late in one of the labs was violently sexually assaulted. It’s important that you hear the facts of the assault because they’re particularly egregious. The victim had her head slammed down to the ground while the perpetrator repeatedly smashed her face against the floor after which he sexually assaulted her. The perpetrator then wiped her body down, stole some of her clothes and her cell phone and left victim on the floor tied up and semi-naked.

Just shy of the two year limitation period to bring a suit against Carleton, the victim has brought a suit against the university for just over $500,000.

In the Statement of Defence served by the university, they engage in victim-blaming, according to the Carleton University Student’s Association (CUSA) and other student organizations, by indicating that Carleton is not responsible because the victim failed to keep a “proper lookout,” didn’t lock the door of the lab and stayed in the lab alone.

This is a civil suit and the university is being represented by lawyers hired by its insurer and as such, all the stops are being taken to shield itself from liability which is generally what happens when an insurance company is involved in negligence matters such as this one.

It might be helpful for me to give a crash course in how a civil case comes to pass in Ontario.

Firstly, the plaintiff will file a statement of claim which is meant to be a precise statement of the facts that the plaintiff intends to prove at trial. It doesn’t get into the evidence that will be relied upon by the plaintiff but rather, it is a concise statement of the facts that the plaintiff intends to prove by calling evidence.

The university, or more particularly, its insurers, have 20 days to respond (or 30 by filing a Notice of Intent to Defend) or longer if the parties’ lawyers agree to a further extension, to prepare and serve a statement of defence.

When drafting a statement of defence, the purpose is to set out all possible defences to the claims set out in the statement of claim. If this is not done, the defendant may not be able to add defences at a later point (this is generally done with leave of the court or consent from the other party only) and generally, will not be granted if it would prejudice the other party.

As a result, the statement of defence is usually set up as a kitchen sink denial of any and all possible liability.

For this reason, it would be pretty difficult to draft a statement of defence that complied with a lawyer’s duty to its defendant client by professional standards to not engage in victim blaming. That is, after all, the very nature of the statement of defence.

While the statement of defence obviously leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, I do understand that is the job of Carleton’s lawyer and frankly, there’s really no way to get around that…or is there?

After this assault, Carleton’s response was to institute significantly more security measures. To me, that indicates that Carleton recognized its lax security for its students who may be alone or working late.

It is a university, after all. Is that not what we were expected to do when we were in university? One only needs to think about being in an isolated area of the library or other part of their own university late at night to send a few chills down your spine about your own vulnerability.

The university may have been able to settle this case without the need for a public civil case to take place. Obviously, I’m not involved in this particular case but it’s general practice for a plaintiff’s lawyer to send a letter to the defendant prior to issuing a statement of claim in the interests of attempting to settle the matter without having to go through litigation. While it’s possible that this didn’t happen, it seems to me that this would have been the perfect opportunity to do the right thing. If the matter had settled, Carleton wouldn’t be receiving the bad publicity is now or the public outcry regarding its treatment of the victim.

Likely, this matter will be resolved before trial, as most civil cases are, and hopefully, the victim will obtain a settlement that will allow her to get on with her life as best as she can but in the meantime, the victim has to live through the stress of a claim that may take many years to resolve.

What are your dreams for women?

Dear readers, they’d like your perspective for a project they’re currently carrying out on this very topic:

We are two Third Wave feminist researchers with our own strong spiritual leanings and have noticed a lack of information on how our feminist peers live out their own spiritual lives. We’re doing a pilot study on third wave feminists’ experience of spirituality, a study that to our knowledge, has never been studied before.

If you identify as a woman and a third wave feminist and you’re between the ages of 18-40, fill out our short (we estimate under 20 minutes) narrative survey!

Sounds like a cool project!

Want to offer your two cents? You can find more info and the link to the survey here. Happy participating, spiritual third wavers!

Calling all campers! Sign up today for the best FREE summer camp experience EVER at Planet IndigenUs – Harbourfront Centre!

Join the fun with Kegedonce Press Authors and Friends with the Native Youth Sexual Health Network on August 22 from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. for “Camp Kegedonce,” a late-night fun-filled, sexy, anything-goes celebration of Indigenous erotica, sexuality and sexual diversity.

WHEN: Saturday, August 22nd
WHERE: Harbourfront Centre Toronto, Lakeview Terrace
TIME: 11pm to 1am
COST: FREE!

It’ll be an R-rated romp through burlesque, body painting, music, and spoken word, with featured readings and performances by nationally renowned Metis writer Gregory Scofield performing from the revised, Kegedonce Press edition of his classic book of erotic poetry Love Medicine and One Song, the ever popular and effervescent Cherokee writer Daniel Heath Justice reading racy excerpts from the first ever Indigenous fantasy trilogy, The Way of Thorn and Thunder, and electrifying Anishnaabe writer Kateri Akiwenzie-Damm performing selections from the ground-breaking anthology Without Reservation: Indigenous Erotica.

The incomparable, sex-positive, dynamic Mohawk diva Jessica Yee will be on hand to rock the mic as MC. She’ll introduce you to hot young local Native spoken word artists from Red Slam and entice you with prizes and give-aways from the Native Youth Sexual Health Network and Good for Her feminist sex store.

Body painter Ark Angel and Métis burlesque dancer Veronika Swartz AKA “Priscilla Pussycat” from the Shameless Dames will make things sizzle while dj Mad Eskimo keeps the fires burning with his Arctic flavoured, heart thumping, body pumping, soulful electronic sounds, music, and images.

Questions? E-mail info [at] kegedonce [dot] com