By now you’ve probably heard about OJ Simpson’s upcoming book and Fox TV special, If I Did It, where he details how he would’ve killed his wife Nicole, if he had killed her. (insert projectile vomiting, screaming, pulling out of own hair, or any other means of expressing disgust and distress). Lucinda Marshall, at the Women in Media & News blog posts all the gory details, and states, “three women are murdered every day at the hands of their intimate partners. It is unconscionable to think that Simpson, ReganBooks, HarperCollins Publishers, and FOX would promote a how-to guide for killing your wife.” For some supremely depressing (but, I think, important to know) stats on sexual and physical violence against women in Canada, go here.

Interestingly, OJ’s publisher at Regan Books has refused to disclose whether or not he’ll make any money off of this book. I feel like that means he’s definitely getting the big bucks.

I have been hemming and hawing over a Belinda Stronach blog for a while now. On the one hand, as a Canadian, feministy website, I think we should have at least one post about her. On the other hand, I don’t really have anything to say. It’s another case of: it’s just so awful, what is there to say? (Sorry, sorry, I know it’s bad form to link to yourself…)

To update our non-Canadian readers, (or anyone who doesn’t follow the thrilling and spectacular world of Canadian politics) Belinda Stronach, a.k.a. Liberal MP a.k.a. daughter and C.E.O. of Magna Corp a.k.a. pretty, has been one of the most prominent and controversial characters in politics, in part because she’s done some stunning things in her career: in 2005 she left the Conservative party for the Liberal party. But as far as wild career moves go, that seems to be essentially it. What’s more widely reported is that she’s dated a whole bunch of people, which is weird, considering that the press usually doesn’t report about the private lives of politicians. I can list all of her beaus for the past two years, but I can’t tell you a single thing about what she stands for: she’s boyfriended Peter MacKay, then deputy leader of the Conservative party, Tie Domi, who is a married ex-hockey player who also appears to be a bit of a goon, and apparently Bill Clinton (I’m confused about that one).

Over the past month, in a country famous for being overly polite and just a little afraid of conflict (the war we are fighting in Afghanistan notwithstanding…), three prominent figures have made extremely offensive and lewd comments about her, even to my inured potty mouth ears. Belinda’s love life and the mean things people say about it have gotten more press attention than that time the government fell in 2005 (That’s not an exaggeration!).

1) On Oct 19, Peter MacKay, her ex-bf and our minister of Foreign Affairs, was joking about pollution (a funny subject) in the House of Commons with a Liberal MP. When asked if he was worried about the effects of pollution on his dog, he allegedly pointed to Belinda’s empty chair (she was away that day) and said, “you already have her.” MacKay insists he never said this, despite the fact that several other MPs went on the record as having overheard it. He’s refused to apologise and the Speaker of the House has said that since none of the House recorders picked it up, it can’t be proved definitively that he did say it, and nothing can be done about it.

2) Oct 30: Norman Spector, one time chief of staff and Canadian ambassador, said ON THE RADIO: “You know, I’m not in politics, I can say it, I think [Belinda Stronach]’s a b**** and I think that 90 per cent of men would probably say she’s a b****, for the way she’s broken up [former Maple Leaf] Tie Domi’s home and the way she dumped Peter MacKay. She is a b****.” (I bleeped out b**** not because I’m worried my mum will read this post, but because that word is rife everywhere else, I vote to make this a b****-free space. Unless it’s in reference to Bitch, the magazine.) After, Spector refused to apologise for this remark.

3) And as a grand finale, on Nov 7, Alberta premier Ralph Klein (yup, the leader of one of the most powerful provinces) said in reference to Belinda’s defection to the Liberal party: “‘I wasn’t surprised she crossed over. I don’t think she ever had a Conservative bone in her body — well, except for one,’” said Klein. In case anyone in the audience missed the punch line, he continued: ‘Speaking of Peter MacKay…’” (thanks to my friends at ctv.ca for this quote. And of course, afterwards he refused to apologise.

See, I told you, it’s so horrible, what is there to say about it?

I’m not a Stronach supporter, but I was totally distressed by the comments made about her. It sends a clear message to any young woman bold enough to go into politics in Canada that, if you want to get anywhere, you better date like a nun, keep your mouth shut, and act with more decorum than any man in the house does.

But in the end, what made me want to post about Belinda, was that I heard multiple women complain that, when Belinda responded that MacKay’s comment was “offensive to all women,” she was making the issue about women, when it was only about Belinda. I feel vehemently that that is untrue. As one of the most prominent women in Canada (even if her power is constantly attacked and denigrated), when she’s slurred in public by powerful men in our community, it IS about us.

“But it puts a political slant on the meaning of Remembrance Day and that’s unacceptable in our eyes.”

The origins of the white poppy are with the British Peace Pledge Union (sidebar: it will be a rare post from me that does not include some link back to wikipedia…). Interestingly, the Peace Pledge Union started as an effort exclusive to men, organizing them to send postcards in opposition to war, “countering the idea that only women were involved in the peace movement”.

Wearing a white poppy is, depending on your source, an alternative or a parallel message to the wearing of a red one. Most sources agree however that the white poppy is intended to be a symbol of peace and nonviolence. And many people who wear the white poppy will choose to wear both the red and the white versions, because around this time of year there are people, myself included, who simply want to be clear on exactly what it is we are marking on Remembrance Day.

I don’t wear a red poppy. The Royal Canadian Legion (who have the trademark on the red poppy a whole separate issue) say that the red poppy stands internationally as a symbol of collective reminiscence. On their website they go on to say that the subject of John McCraes poem In Flanders Fields (the inspiration for the red poppy symbol) is the fear of the dead that they will not be remembered. But I remember the annual reading of John McCraes poem from elementary school onwards. And I remember sitting in the gym and hearing that fear, but also hearing this line: Take up our quarrel with the foe. That line to me speaks of a different subject, the one which prompts me to want to wear a white poppy. I am not not wearing a red poppy with any intent to dishonour the dead, but I do want to use this time to question how best we should honour them. We are asked to contemplate the costs of war but not very often the alternatives to it.

The quote above is from The Currents lead-in to this mornings segment on nonviolence. There was a reasonably meaty discussion this morning regarding the use and appropriateness of nonviolence, and its worth listening to. In Part 2, both guests, Mark Kurlansky and Margaret MacMillan, raised a lot of good questions, such as whether nonviolence gives a moral authority; what to do in the face of overwhelming force; when and how nonviolence is effective (and what to do when it isn’t); and how to stop a leader who is bent on war. There was of course no solution reached in the 23 minute segment. But there were a number of assertions that you could chew on for a while on your own, such as Margaret’s comment that nonviolence only works when there is an opinion that can be influenced (e.g. not a violent dictatorship). And Mark’s response to the question “how do you persuade people to use nonviolence when there is such a likelihood that you’ll get hurt?” with “how do you persuade people to go to war?”

I don’t think war is glorious. I think there are moments of incredible and unthinkable bravery and selflessness. I think there are also many moments of incredible and unthinkable atrocity. War is a failure, and there are not many Remembrance Day ceremonies that, to me, explicitly recognize that.

What do you think?

If you’re in Toronto this week you might want to check out a lunchtime lecture with Heather Hicks at The University of Toronto. I had the fortunate experience of participating in a Book Making Workshop led by Heather earlier this year and find her and her work to be both relevant and accessible.

The details are below:
Brown Bag Lecture by Heather Hicks
Sexual Abuse/The Violence Of Gender Norms
Wednesday, November 8 At Noon
252 Bloor Street West (OISE/UT) 2nd Floor, Room 2-227
Heather Hicks will be presenting an annotated slide talk that will illustrate a discussion of her recent visual work and previous projects that are relevant to its development. She will speak about the importance of process work and writing in the development of her visual imagery and particularly, the role that the integration of text into visual media has played in negotiating healing and issues of identity that relate to experiences of sexual abuse.

Admission is free! All welcome!

Download the pdf poster here.

I’m looking forward to seeing Shut Up And Sing, Barbara Kopple and Cecilia Peck’s documentary about the backlash the Dixie Chicks faced after the country rockers spoke out against George W. Bush on the evening of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Alternet has a great piece that centres on the forces that fuelled hatred for the Chicks, mainly concentrated corporate power — “Travelin Soldier was the number one single when it was removed from playing rotation. Cumulus Media, a consortium of 306 radio stations, told their affiliates not to play the Chicks’ music. Several disc jockeys who broke the ban were fired according to press reports” — and good, old-fashioned sexism: “Did the Dixie Chicks pay a higher price for speaking out because they were women? Kopple believes women get into trouble for speaking their minds when the expectation is that men are the ones to speak out, to take a stand, and a womans role is to stand with her man. I think these ideas still permeate our culture. Apparently to the country music world, seeming unpatriotic in a time of war is a far worse sin than being a convicted wife batterer like Tracy Lawrence, who has been able to rehabilitate himself with his fans.”

There’s been a lot of recent talk in the Shameless community about being an aware responsible consumer, and I don’t believe that the world of book buying is exempt from this kind of scrutiny. I’ve been known to sing the praises of indie buying time and time again, but thanks to the recommendation of the nomediakings.org weblink, I’m starting to understand why its more important than ever.

At times the commercial publishing industry, like the cosmetic or fashion industry, is just as guilty of bad exploitive practice, its mandate driven by sales and and thereby making it less than virtuous in its actions. We forget that our beloved books are part of what we know and critique as media, and that media is not famous for honest tactics. I’ve heard some horror stories as of late that reveal the big publishers as exploiting someone’s ethnicity or gender in order to sell a work, an action that ultimately leaves the author as a pawn in a economic game. The problem often lies in how authors are unwilling to talk about the injustices, their piece of the pie the smallest and with a thousand hungry writers behind them, they are reluctant to lose what they have. You’ll notice here I have failed to name specific companies or instances in the spirit of that same fear.

The issue is media monopolies and consolodations that leave us all without choice. My temporary solution to keeping my dollar away from the media machine is my discovery of bookmooch.com. Although it certainly does not solve the problem of media monopoly, it allows you to hold onto your dollar and share what you already have in the way of books with the rest of the world. Book mooch is a rather sophisticated online community of readers, each user compiling an inventory of the books they already have and other users are able to “mooch” at will. The only cost for a user is postage, and your personal account works on a point system- the more you send and share, the more you can mooch.

I love the concept, and so far its been working for me. If I don’t want to shell out up to fourty dollars for the latest Douglas Coupland hardcover I can mooch it from someone in Texas, while someone in Sacramento can partake in my rare north of the border indie collection.

Trouble is, the only way this sharing community can survive is with the advertising support of the largest online book retailer in the world—so the question continues to be, should we even care?

Ahem. Now that I’ve got your attention…

Okay, cheesy tactics aside, I want to say that it’s been real inspiring to hear the reports of so many folks in the Shameless community on how they’re trying to make conscientious consumer choices, whether it’s organic local food, sweatshop-free clothing or cruelty-free makeup (or the choice not to buy at all). In a society where dollars speak louder than most everything, I think there is definitely a lot that’s worthwhile in basing your shopping decisions on how to tread more lightly on the world, environmentally and labour-wise.

At the same time, I worry that, as the Clamor expose on American Apparel put it, we often feel we can “solve the problem” of late capitalism by consuming conscientiously. But thinking of ourselves only as consumers, rather than citizens, can have some seriously detrimental effects on how we live. Early this morning I was listening to an interview with George Monbiot, environmentalist and author of Heat: How To Stop the Planet Burning. He articulated my fears extremely well, pointing out that although he has never driven a car, without any kind of political policy to back up his environment-based choice, all he’s doing is freeing up road-space for people who drive vehicles that are more consumptive than his would have been had he bought one. I may have been half asleep, but it seemed to me that his message was pretty clear: if we want to see any kind of positive change in the environment and in social life, we have to stop thinking of ourselves as only consumers and take on the burden of citizenship.

Problem is, it’s so much easier to act with your money. What with leaders we didn’t vote for (and even those we did vote for having dubious agendas at best), baffling bureaucratic processes, and political life just seeming so damn inaccessible for most of us, it’s hard not to feel helpless and frustrated, and thus retreat into an apathetic slump whenever questions on public policy arise. I’m sure a lot of us can relate to the feeling of “activist burnout”, after however many protests and petitions and letter-writings that seem to go nowhere, leaving us feeling unempowered and alienated.

I don’t have any answers here; I just know that I’d like to be more responsible as a citizen but I’m not sure how. I’d love it if some of you folks could jump in on the debate.

I’m way behind on posting about this, thanks to Shameless columnist and friend Anne Katz for passing it along. I’ve been following the Dove “Campaign for Real Beauty” for a while now, and wrote a piece about it in our last issue, in which I found their marketing campaign, which centres on notions of “real” beauty to sell beauty products, full of contradictions.

Their new ad fascinates me for so many reasons. One, the company made the ad (which they call a “film”) for their website, but on a whim uploaded it to YouTube, where it was viewed over a hundred thousand times and written about in newspapers. Think about how much money the company saved on ad costs (and now Shameless is effectively advertising for Dove because I have posted an ad on our website! For free! I feel uncomfortable with this, but I want us to discuss this video).

But more importantly, what to make of an ad for a beauty product line that outs the marketing strategies of the entire beauty product industry? I tried to contemplate some of these ideas in my piece, but I think this ad/film adds some more layers to the debate. Does exposing the way images of women are fabricated and sold to us change the way we look at advertising and understand ourselves in relation to these images? Does it matter if we can “read” ads for what they really are? Should we even care?