Ontario Feminist Blogs

I recently had the pleasure of attending the annual fundraising breakfast for the Canadian Women’s Foundation. This is an organization that I had only heard of recently, but has actually been around for almost 20 years. The mission of the CWF is to raise money to “research and share the best approaches to ending violence against women, moving low-income women out of poverty and empowering girls with confidence, courage and critical thinking skills.” A foundation that focuses on helping women and girls? At the grassroots level? And influenced by research and best practices? CWF, where have you been all my life?!

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.

Related posts:

1. From our friends at the Canadian Women’s Foundation
2. Exciting Canadian pro-choice project
3. Canadian artists: White, female, broke

Confabulous readers know that we are supporters of Antigone Magazine’s Dreams for Women project. And now, we’re happy to spread the word that you can enjoy the project every day by buying a fancy new 2010 calendar! This year, Antigone decided to do something different and feature postcards made by some of Canada’s female Olympic athletes. Check out some of their postcards here. Your non-profit can sell the calendar as an awesome fundraiser. And if your business is stocking up on calendars for next year, you can buy in bulk and get a discount.

Related posts:

1. Beyond size, weight, fear, hate: Dreams for women
2. Confabulous has Dreams for Women
3. There are dreams unrealized

It’s just been reported on the Ms. Magazine website that the BC Appeal Court has released its written report explaining why there will be no Olympic ski jumping event this winter–for women, at least. The report reads:

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.

Related posts:

1. A calendar that supports women every day
2. Roundup–Monday-style
3. Thursday’s roundup: Less depressing than Wednesday’s