The Girl Effect by Sabine, at Confabulous 7:59 am / 30 September 2009
Wow. Just wow. This is brilliant marketing, making a complex idea simple.
Related posts:
September 2009
Why a 13-year-old girl is my inspiration by Sabine, at Confabulous 11:13 am / 28 September 2009
A few weeks back, the Guardian had a story on teen bloggers making waves in the blogosphere. Among the young women they covered were a shopping guru named Kristin Prim and a 20-year-old “student confessor” named Angelique. There was also a teen blogger I want to give a grown-up feminist shout-out to: 16-year-old “angry young feminist” Julie Zeilinger and her blog, the F-Bomb (which recently covered one of the axes I love to grind: slutty Hallowe’en outfits).
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.
Related posts:
Ask the Lady Lawyer! This week: Equal Marriage…Forever? by Tannis, at Confabulous 11:51 am / 24 September 2009
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.
Related posts:
Life-sized stalker decal by Veronica, at Confabulous 11:54 am / 09 September 2009
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.
No related posts.
Chronicling homelessness at InvisiblePeople.tv by Sabine, at Confabulous 7:27 am / 03 September 2009
I found out about InvisiblePeople.tv from Katya Andersen’s non-profit marketing blog. It’s a project undertaken by Mark Horvath, who was once a homeless person, and now maintains a vlog of interviews with people living on the streets. The brief videos are powerful testimonies to just how easily homelessness can happen, and how excruciatingly difficult it can be to get out. I’d love to know if anyone has undertaken a similar project in Canada.
Homelessness, of course, has its gendered dimensions, as Tracy’s story illustrates:
Tracy and her children from InvisiblePeople.tv on Vimeo.
No related posts.
What are your dreams for women? by Sabine, at Confabulous 12:33 pm / 02 September 2009
Ready to share your dreams? Send your postcard to:
Antigone Magazine
C/O WILLA UBC
Box 61- 6138 SUB Boulevard
Vancouver, BC
V6T 1Z1
Related posts:
Ask the Lady Lawyer! This week: Court of Appeal rules that the attractiveness of sexual assault victims isn’t relevant in a sexual assault trial by Tannis, at Confabulous 11:11 am / 01 September 2009
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.
Related posts:
Categories: Advocacy
