I highly recommend Gwynne Dyer’s Climate Wars, but I must say he misses an obvious point, especially evident when he says “There are almost seven billion of us, and it is almost impossible to imagine a way that we can stop the growth before there are eight and a half billion” (p.268) — because it’s very possible to imagine a way: men just have to stop ejaculating into women’s vaginas.
Just think: the devastating climate changes that have already begun to happen (i.e., the beginning of the now-inevitable end of life as we know it) could’ve been avoided if we’d kept our greenhouse gases to under 350 ppm — which would have been so easy if we’d kept our population to a certain level.
So it begs the question: why is not ejaculating into women’s vaginas so unimaginable for men?
We need a noise trespass law. At the very least, the concept of noise trespass should be as familiar among the general population as physical trespass.
Why is going onto someone’s private property without permission (physical trespass) considered a wrong? Because doing so is intrusive (presuming a right to privacy) and potentially damaging. The same goes for sending noise onto someone’s private property.
Noise is intrusive because it—the sound of machinery, loud music, screaming kids, even conversations (having to listen to someone have an extended cellphone conversation, for example)—detracts and distracts from whatever one is trying to do, whether that’s watching tv, listening to (one’s own preferred) music, writing an essay, filling out income tax returns, sleeping…it doesn’t really matter. Surely we have a right to privacy concerning our attention; noise hijacks our attention—it coerces us to pay attention to something we don’t want to pay attention to.
Noise is potentially damaging in a number of ways. Depending on a number of factors (of which dB is only one), noise “damages hearing [at least 20% of teenagers now suffer from slight hearing loss], disturbs communication, disrupts sleep, affects heart function, intrudes on cognition…, reduces productivity, provokes unwanted behaviors, and increases accidents” (Mitra). It can also cause or contribute to “anxiety, stress, nervousness, nausea, headache, emotional instability, argumentativeness, sexual impotence, change in mood, increase in social conflicts, neurosis, hysteria, and psychosis” (Noise Free America).
Noise produced by industry, airports, and so on is already being monitored and regulated. I’m talking here about the noise caused by individuals in residential neighborhoods. Various sound charts put city traffic at around 80dB, the subway at 88dB, a garbage truck at 100dB; lawnmowers and leafblowers can also be as high as 100dB, and chainsaws, dirt bikes, ATVs, boat motors, and PWCs are louder still, at around 110dB.
But, one might object, although we own our own property, and so have a right to object when someone trespasses on it, we don’t own the air over our property, and sound travels through the air. There are several replies to this: we shouldn’t own the land either (and yet physical trespass might still be wrong, merely because of occupancy); we should also own the air over our land (in which case, noise trespass is as wrong as physical trespass); we collectively own the air (and that’s sufficient to consider noise a trespass); ownership is irrelevant altogether (occupancy is sufficient). People get upset when a neighbour’s dandelion seeds travel through air and land on their property; is there not similar justification for getting upset when a neighbour’s sound waves travel through air and ‘land’—ah, but they don’t land on one’s property. No, but they ‘land’ on one’s eardrums: sound is not perceived until the sound waves ‘hit’ one’s eardrums. Surely that’s even more intrusive: the sound waves actually touch our body, not just our property.
In any case, smoke from burning tires travels through air, and if it travels from your neighbour’s property through the air onto your property, or, more accurately, into the air over your property, perhaps even through your open windows into your house, you would, I think, cry foul.
In addition to the intrusion and the damage, most of the annoying noise caused by individuals is avoidable. Manual lawnmowers, rakes, and clippers have enabled people to take care of their lawns for almost a century. I suspect that dirt bikes, ATVs, and PWCs can be redesigned to be quiet; for starters, could they not use electric motors rather than two-stroke gas-powered motors? They certainly don’t have to be modified to increase their noise (as they often are), and they can be driven in a fashion that minimizes their noise (as they often are not). And, of course, people could use instead bicycles, kayaks, canoes, and so on. And earbuds or headphones. And landline phones inside buildings.
All of which begs the question: why don’t we consider noise trespass to be trespass? Are we so unable to consider the invisible and the intangible? It we can’t see it or touch it, it doesn’t exist? Despite its obvious effects?
Or is it that men like noise? (After all, for the most part, they’re the ones making it.) And it is the male view, male interests, male values that dictate law and custom, make no mistake about that. This is the view presented at Manly Power Tools. It’s also the view endorsed by a certain electronic composer who, when asked why he writes such loud, dense music, replied “Besides the obvious? The desire to fill all this space with sound?” Perhaps men are still being led around by their primitive brain, and all their noise is just a sublimated roar, mistakenly believed to be necessary for survival. (Which begs the question: when will they evolve into homo sapiens?)
Because chest-waders are made for men, I have to buy a size medium so the thighs fit. Which means the shoulder straps, even at their smallest, keep slipping off. And, okay, after suffering the frustration of that a couple times – either struggling against them as they restrict my movement hanging halfway down my arms or constantly putting them back onto my shoulders – I rigged up a tie-back. But, worse, it also means the boots are clown-size. Do you have any idea how bloody difficult it is to do anything, let alone something like fix a dock wading on slimy rocks in muck, with clown-size boots on?
Because kayaks are also apparently made for men, the footpegs even at their closest setting mean I have to paddle with my legs almost straight, instead of, as is more comfortable, and more efficient, with my legs bent.
And I’m not talking about just relentless inconvenience and reduced quality of performance on a personal level. It’s my understanding that, for example, the hoses at firehalls are stored at a height that makes it easy for men, but extremely difficult for women, to get them off the wall. So in an application-for-employment test, women are more apt to fail as they stumble and fall, too-top-heavy, given the height of the hoses, their own height, and their center of gravity. In a real fire-fighting situation, should they not fail and consequently be hired, they may hold up the rest of the crew as they take extra care not to stumble and fall.
Do you see the problem?
And do you see a solution other than ‘Stay the fuck in the kitchen where you belong?’
I suspect that even with today’s rigorous interview and job performance appraisal techniques, which require that all applicants be asked and scored on the same questions, multiple standards still interfere with merit as the sole criterion for hiring and promotion.
How? Well suppose the interviewers are asked to rate the candidates on ‘friendliness’. On an absolute scale of ten, the averagely friendly woman is, or is thought to need to be, at, let’s say, 6. So for a female candidate to be rated ‘very friendly’ as opposed to just ‘friendly enough’, she must score 7 or better. The averagely friendly man, on the other hand, men tending of course to smile less, chat less, be more product-oriented than process-oriented, etc., is at, say, 4. So for a male candidate to be rated ‘very friendly’, he must score only 5 or better. There you have it: suppose both a male and female applicant score 5 on this friendliness score – the man will be perceived as ‘more friendly than’ and the woman as ‘less friendly than’.
The same might go for appearance: the man who spends ten minutes to get ready for work, to shower and put on clean clothes, is deemed presentable; the woman who does the same is told she should’ve dressed up a bit (what, no make up? no styled hair? no jewellery?).
The assertiveness scale probably works the other way: say both candidates are at 5 – the man may be deemed ‘not a go-getter’ or ‘lacking in confidence’, the woman, ‘pushy’ or ‘arrogant’.
And on and on.
How do we correct this? Many interviewers take great pains to be fair, to be consistent, to stick to the list of questions – so what, exactly, is the problem? Well, it’s usually not the questions, but the answers – it’s how the answers are heard. Most of the interviewers were raised in sexist times and so differentiating on the basis of sex is second nature to them; and it’s hard to shed one’s formative years overnight. Or even over a decade, apparently.
Gender blind interviewing might help, but without expensive voice scramblers and screens, this is impossible. And I suppose, to some extent, these measures would defeat the purpose of the interview.
However, if all items but those which couldn’t possibly be measured except in a face-to-face encounter were measured prior to the interview, that would go a long way. Cover letters and resumes could be identified by number only (as is the case with anonymous review for publication). Calling people listed as references would, unfortunately, reveal gender (damn our language and names), so perhaps the conversation or at least the comments could be translated to gender-free language by someone not doing the actual scoring. This wouldn’t eliminate the gender bias of the person called, but it would minimize what gets passed on.
Another solution might be to adjust the scores, after the interviews, to compensate for the sexism: one could apply an SCI, a Sexism Compensation Index, whereby all of the scores would be adjusted up or down a few points depending on the sex of the applicant, the item scored, and perhaps the sex of the interviewer. So, for example, the woman’s friendliness score of 5 will get boosted to 6 or 7 to reflect the higher standard that is sexistly expected of women; 7 compared to 5, well then it’s clear that the woman indeed is the friendlier of the two.
Am I serious? Not really. But sort of – knowing this, considering this, during the interview and at any other gender-known stage, might alone effect the necessary adjustment.
First, there’s the noise of the motor. Men like noise. They think they’re the ones making it. So they think they sound like a lion or a bear. They think they’re threatening. Instead of just bloody annoying.
Second, there’s the stink of the exhaust fumes. Men like stink. Most of them are still farting at the dinner table and snickering about it.
Third, since they often go fishing with other men, they get to compete. Men like competing. Anywhere, anytime, with anyone, about anything.
First one of the men will stand, perhaps casually, explaining to his buddies that he can get a better cast. A mild discomfort will start to spread among the other guys, but not one of them will be able to explain it. Certainly it’s not that they’re afraid their buddy may fall out of the boat. Eventually a second guy will stand. And his discomfort will go away. Or at least recede a bit. Depending on how tall he is, relative to the first guy. The remaining two guys will become even more incomprehensibly uncomfortable, until eventually they too will stand. There. That’s better. Despite the increasing precariousness of the whole. Then the first guy will stand up on one of the seats, and almost immediately another one will stand on the prow. Of course the lot of them will likely go overboard, but apparently that’s not a foreseeable result.
Lastly, there’s something very sexual, very masturbatory about reeling in, moving one’s hand around and around at cock level. No wonder they wanna be a rock star strutting around on stage strumming an instrument slung low just right there. And no wonder men go fishing for hours.
1. SlutWalk was reportedly initiated in response to a police officer’s comment about not dressing like a slut if you don’t want to get raped. The underlying assumption is that one’s attire — specific items or style — sends a message. And indeed it does. High heels, fishnet stockings, and a heavily made-up face are considered invitations. So if a woman is wearing ‘fuck me shoes’, she can hardly complain if someone fucks her. But is that the message the woman is sending? A message that she’s sexually available to everyone? Maybe. Maybe not. Frankly, given the ambiguity, and the nature of the outcome in the case of misunderstanding, I wonder why women take the risk.
It’s much like wearing one’s gang colours in the territory of a rival gang. Of course it’s going to be provocative. Is any consequent assault legal? No. Is it deserved? No. Should it have been anticipated? Yes. So unless the intent was to make a point about the wrongness of gangs and violence, a point best made by arranging media presence for the incursion into the other gang’s territory, well, how stupid are you?
Granted, most women who dress in a sexually attractive way don’t go that far (fishnet stockings and heavy make-up), but why go any way at all? Why does a woman dress in a sexually attractive way? Why do women put on high heels, show their legs, wear bras that push up their breasts and tops that expose cleavage, redden their lips, and so on? What does she hope to attract exactly?
My first guess is that she hasn’t thought about it. She dresses in a sexually attractive way because, well, that’s what women in our society are expected to do.(1) In which case she’s an idiot. Doesn’t deserve to be raped, but really, she should think about what she does.
My second guess is that she dresses in a sexually attractive way because she wants to invite offers of sex.(2) But then, she shouldn’t be angry when she receives such offers, either in the form of whistles and call-outs or in more direct ways. That she may respond with anger or offense suggests that she wants to attract only offers she’s likely to accept, offers only from men she’s attracted to. But, men may cry, how’s a man to know? Um, try to make eye contact. If you can’t do that, she’s not interested. If you do make eye contact, smile. If she doesn’t smile back, she’s not interested. Surely that kind of body language isn’t too subtle to grasp.
And yet, many men seem to have such an incapacity for subtlety that if you act like bait, they may simply reach out and grab you. Are they entitled to do that? No. Any unauthorized touching is a violation. Is clothing authorization? Well, sometimes. Consider uniforms.
So it would be far less ambiguous if a woman who wants sex just extended the offers herself. Why take the passive route of inviting offers from likely candidates? Why make men try to figure out whether they’re a likely candidate? Why not just let them know and go from there?
2. Many people may not have been aware of the police officer’s comment. So what are they to make of SlutWalk? What are they to understand is the point? (Prerequisite to deciding whether to support SlutWalk or not.)
a) “It’s okay to be a slut!” Given the ‘sluttish’ appearance that many women present during the walk, this understanding is understandable. But whether or not one wants to endorse that message depends on the definition of ‘slut.’ See“What’s wrong with being a slut?”
b) “We’re proud to be sluts!”
c) “No woman deserves to be raped, regardless of her attire!” This is probably closest to the intended message, but in this case, better to have called it a “Walk Against Rape”. Better, further, to advocate changes that would make rape more likely to be reported and rapists more likely to be sentenced commensurate to the injuries they’ve caused. Perhaps better still to advocate a male-only curfew.
Of course, “SlutWalk” is far more provocative, far more attention-getting, than the ho-hum “Walk Against Rape”, but I don’t think the organizers considered the difficulty of reclaiming an insulting word. And ‘slut’ is a very difficult insulting word to reclaim. Harder than ‘bitch’ and ‘nigger’ and even those reclamation efforts haven’t been very successful. Mostly, success has been limited to conversations among women in the first case and conversations among blacks in the second. SlutWalk is not conducted in the presence of women only. So, really, did the organizers expect people in general to accept (let alone understand) their implied redefinition?
The organizers also didn’t think through the male over-dependence on visual signals. The gawkers and hecklers who typically undermine the event should be expected. The inability of men to process any verbal messages (even those just a few words long) in the presence of so-called ‘fuck me’ heels should be expected.
Consider that even Gwen Jacobs’ action to make it legal for women to be shirtless wasn’t immune to sexualization, despite the clearly non-sexual nature of her action; men (BOOBS!) hooted, men (BOOBS!) called out, and the media, no doubt reflecting a decision made by a man (BOOBS!), or perhaps a thoughtless woman, continues to use the sexualized “topless” instead of “shirtless” when reporting about the issue (BOOBS!). Imagine the response had Jacobs gone shirtless while also wearing short shorts exposing half buttocks. It would have been, to understate, a mixed message.
And that is, essentially, the problem with SlutWalk. High heels, exposed legs, pushed-up breasts, and a made-up faces sends a message that one is sexually available (which is why it’s appalling to me that it has become convention for women to wear heels and make-up in public every day all day) (those who accept that convention accept the view that women should be, or at least should seem to be, sexually available every day all day).(3) And if it doesn’t send a message that you’re sexually available, what message does it send? That you’re sexually attractive? Back to the top—what are you hoping to attract? (And why are you trying to attract that when you’re at work, working?)
d) “Women have a right to tease!” That seems to be the message SlutWalk conveys, given the likelihood that women who present themselves as sexually attractive aren’t actually trying to be sexually attractive to everyone or, at least, aren’t sexually available to everyone. And that’s a message that many women would not Especially those who know about the provocation defence.
There’s nothing wrong with extending invitations to sex. Doing so in public in such a non-specific way—that’s the problem. Especially given men’s inability to pick up on subtle cues and/or their refusal to understand the difference between yes and no, let alone yes and maybe. Maybe when men can handle a sexually charged atmosphere without assaulting… Maybe when other men penalize, one way or another, those who can’t handle a sexually charged atmosphere without assaulting…
In the meantime, we’re living in an occupied country, a country occupied by morally-underdeveloped people with power who think women are just walking receptacles for their dicks. So women who make themselves generally available, or present themselves as being generally available, are, simply, putting themselves at great risk (and, yes, in a way, getting what they asked for): some STDs are fatal; others are incurable; most have painful symptoms. And pregnancy has a life-long price tag.(4)
(1) There’s a difference between attractive and sexually attractive. At least, there should be. Perhaps because men dominate art and advertising, the two have been equivocated. (No doubt because everything is sexual for them. ) (Which may be to say, everything is about dominance for them.)
(2) Maybe part of her smiles to think of herself as a slut. She’s a bad girl, she’s dangerous, she’s taking risks, she’s a wild girl for once in her life. But that’s exactly what they want. Sexual access. No-strings-attached sex. We fell for that in the 60s too. Free love, sure, we’re not prudes, we’re okay with our bodies, we’re okay with sex, we’re ‘with it’. But they never took us seriously. They never considered us part of the movement. Behind our backs, they’d snicker and say the best position for a woman is prone ( Stokely Carmichael) (read your history, learn about your past).
(3) Of course there’s the possibility that if/when women forego the heels, bared legs, accentuated breasts and butts, and make-up, men will consider a little ankle to be an open invitation. Which just means the issue isn’t attire at all. It’s being female. In a patriarchy. (Which still means SlutWalk is off-target.)
(4) I hear the objections already: ‘No, wearing high heels and make-up doesn’t mean I’m sexually available! That’s the point!’ (And around and around we go.) Then why do you wear high heels and make-up? Seriously, think about it: high heels make the leg more shapely, attracting the male gaze, which follows your legs up…; make-up makes your face younger, supposedly prettier, lipstick attracts the male gaze to your lips… If you just want to be attractive, then what you do to your body wouldn’t be sexualized: you’d wear funky gold glittered hiking boots, you’d paint an iridescent rainbow across your face, you’d do a hundred other aesthetically interesting things…
One good thing about television stations’ mega-coverage of the Olympics is that women’s events are shown a lot. Often within close temporal proximity to men’s events. Comparison is inevitable. And interesting.
Consider volleyball. Now the women, when they dive for the ball, they do this really neat shoulder roll: it’s smooth, efficient, and really cool to see – you hardly know they went down, they’re back on their feet in a flash. The men’s technique? They do a belly flop. Really, it’s sort of a chest first body slam. Some follow through with a give-me-ten marines push-up, but most just kind of lie there for a second, face in the floor. I suppose they think the move looks dramatic, extra-heroic. I think it looks stupid.
And men’s basketball, now that’s not even a sport anymore. The guys are simply too big. Give me a ball small enough to hold upside-down with one hand, and I’ll be doing some pretty fancy dribbling too. Give me a net so low to the ground I can just reach up and touch it, and I’ll slam dunk every time. And give me a court I can cover in five strides, hell, I’ll play a whole game without even breaking into a sweat.
And yet even with these size advantages, men’s play pales in comparison to women’s play. For example, men pass the ball a lot less often – even though it’s easier to do so (one hand to throw/catch it, the other to screen the throw/catch). And even though they barely need to jump to make a basket, their timing and coordination is so poor, they hit the basket on their way down, often grabbing on to it for dear life so they can at least land on their feet. (By the way, a couple hundred pounds hanging onto the rim – I don’t know about you, but we used to yell at anyone who bent the rim and then kick them out of the game!)
And gymnastics – now, the differences between women’s and men’s gymnastics have always been rather obvious. For men, one of the big balance moves is a front scale: look at me, I can stand on one foot. For the women, the display of balance occurs on a 4″ wide beam, 3-4′ off the ground, and they practically land in a front scale – after an aerial-back-handspring-with-no-hands-something-or-other.
And the high bar. One bar. Oooooh. Try flipping around two of them, set at different heights.
And the men’s floor. Homophobia at its best. First rule, no music. That would be too much like dancing. (Even though men have been known to dance on occasion.) (Some even have a sense of rhythm.) Second rule, no curves. Ever notice the getting-into-the-corner move? What is that? It looks like a Nazi goose step with a half-turn and a double ‘Heil Hitler’ salute.
Consider track. Have you ever wondered why it took so long (100 years) for there to be a women’s triple jump event? It’s because we’re grown up now, hopscotch isn’t much of a challenge for us. (Y’know what event I’d like to see? Men’s double-dutch. That would be entertainment.)
And Usain Bolt doing the hundred in 9.69 seconds. My dog can do better than that. And she’s only six years old. But then, she’s black too. (Still, I’d like to see Usain try it with a tennis ball in his mouth.)
I used to think that the problem with rape was that women weren’t being explicit – they weren’t actually saying no, partly because men weren’t actually asking. Perhaps because there’s (still?) something shameful about sex that makes people reluctant to come right out and talk about it. Or maybe that would destroy the romance. Whatever.
I still think that a pre-sex explicit question-and-answer might be a valuable social custom, but I’m now thinking that a much bigger part of the problem is that women do say no, explicitly and implicitly, and men do understand that ‘no means no’ (I suspect the prevalence of the ‘no means yes’ belief is grossly exaggerated, if not completely fabricated, by men for men), but men don’t hear us: they continue to think that women, like children, should be seen (okay, looked at – all the time, everywhere) and not heard. And when they do hear us, they don’t take us seriously. We’ve all read the studies about how a woman will say something in a meeting. Silence. Then a little later, a man will say the same thing. Excellent idea, Bob! You’re promoted! Here’s a raise!
Lucinda Vandervort (“Mistake of Law and Sexual Assault: Consent and Mens Rea” in Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 2 ,1987-1988) presents a hypothetical sexual assault trial in which the defendant maintains that all of the woman’s neutral as well as non-cooperative behaviour really indicates consent. The hypothetical defendant may have been honestly mistaken in his belief that the woman consented (which is accepted as a defence in Vandervort’s hypothetical). But given the woman’s behaviour (she said no, she did not say yes, she did not co-operate), surely he was being unreasonable, not to mention arrogant, selfish, immature, or just incredibly stupid – to believe as he did.
And in fact, a standard of reasonable is used: “When an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to considerthe presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief” (Criminal Code s.244(4), my emphasis).
But Vandervort says that a case such as her hypothetical would probably be screened out as unfounded by the police or rejected for prosecution by the Crown on the grounds that the mistaken belief in consent was not “sufficiently unreasonable” – that is, the defendant’s belief is deemed not only honest, it’s considered reasonable enough. What? What planet do you guys live on? Oh. Um, this one.
On a non-patriarchal planet, the man’s belief in consent, despite what the woman said (“I have to leave”, “Stop”) and did (she struggled, she pushed him away), as well as what she didn’t say (“I want to” “Yes”) and didn’t do (undress), would surely be considered unreasonable. And delusional. At the very least, ‘willfully blind’ (and thus unacceptable as a defence).
Further, Vandervort states that in sexual assault cases “the reasonable person standard … focuses on the type and degree of violence used by the assailant and compares it with that used in normal sexual encounters of a similar nature” and notes, somewhat dryly, that “normal sex appears to include some quite extra-ordinary forms of interaction, some of which are quite violent.” Indeed, according to Lorenne Clark and Debra Lewis (Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality, The Women’s Press, 1977), most men (against whom rape complaints were laid with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department in 1970) consider violent behaviour to be normal for a sexual encounter. I wonder how many women would agree. (Though perhaps ‘preferred’ should be substituted for ‘normal’: it could be that a similar finding – that is, that most women also consider violent behaviour to be normal for a sexual encounter – merely reflects the reality of sex because it usually involves a man.)
Even so, one has to wonder just who’s being consulted about what’s normal? Consider Robin Weiner’s comments: “What is ‘normal’ according to male social norms and ‘reasonable’ according to male communication patterns and expectations does not accord with what women believe to be reasonable…. A woman may believe she has communicated her unwillingness to have sex – and other women would agree, thus making it a ‘reasonable’ female expression. Her male partner might still believe she is willing – and other men would agree with his interpretation, thus making it a ‘reasonable’ male interpretation…. The use of a reasonable person standard thus has a basic flaw. Courts do not clarify the perspective from which the ‘reasonableness’ standard should be applied” (“Shifting the Communication Burden: A Meaningful Consent Standard in Rape” in Harvard Women’s Law Journal 6, 1983). And anyway why isn’t what’s acceptable used instead? Just because everyone does it that way (it’s normal) doesn’t mean it’s right!
Look, guys, we take you seriously. We can’t help but do so. Your repertoire of facial expressions, your body language, and your attire are limited to ‘serious’ and ‘more serious’. And when we don’t take you seriously, when we laugh at you, for example, you get really mad.
So, please, show a little respect. Acknowledge that we too have brains. That we know what we want and what we don’t want. That we can express ourselves accurately. Take us seriously. Or don’t take us at all.
The other day, I stopped to help a neighbour whose car was stuck in his driveway. (It was winter. Snow.)
“Want me to push while you give it some gas?” I offered.
“Do you think you can?” he replied.
Well, if I didn’t think I could, I wouldn’t’ve offered. Numbnuts.
On another day, I heard another neighbour say that he’d seen the small tree across the path alongside my cabin (dragged there in an attempt to discourage ATVers), but he didn’t think I’d put it there. He thought to himself it was “too heavy for Peggy”.
(And yes, note the ‘Peggy’ – I’ve never introduced myself to anyone as ‘Peggy’, but he is not the only one to have gone for the diminutive version – do I call him Bobby instead of Bob?).
Here’s the thing. Both neighbours see me kayak every spring/summer/fall afternoon – all afternoon. They both see me hiking through the bush every winter afternoon – all afternoon. They both know I used to be a marathon runner, they’ve seen me go running. They both know (or would, if they’d actually thought about it) that I shovel my own driveway and split my own wood.
And yet pushing a car and moving a small fallen tree is apparently beyond my capabilities.
But not, apparently, beyond their capabilities. Because they’re male. Even though one is in his 70s and the other is in his 60s. Which means I’m considerably younger. Still, they must be stronger than me. Their worldview depends on it.
According to the Canadian Criminal Code (and probably a lot of other criminal codes), murder can be reduced to manslaughter if the person was provoked. Provocation is defined as “a wrongful act or an insult that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control is provocation for the purposes of this section if the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool” (CCC 232.(2)).
It is unfortunate that “an ordinary person” is used as the standard for judgment rather than “a reasonable person”. The ordinary person, in my experience, is not particularly reasonable. The ordinary person is a walking mess of unacknowledged emotions and unexamined opinions, most of which are decidedly unreasonable.
Furthermore, in our society, an ordinary person is gendered, and given the specific use of “his” in 232(2), it seems that it is men who are (mostly) in mind for use of this defence.
The ordinary man doesn’t have a very high opinion of women. In particular, in our society, our heterosexist masculist society, men consider women to be almost solely sexual. And they consider them to be sexual property. The ordinary man also considers himself to be almost solely sexual. His physical strength and other supposed attributes of power (from his income to his hair) are also important, but mostly only as indicators of his sexual prowess or attractiveness (go figure). This means that an insult to his sexual prowess, or to any of the stand-ins, especially if uttered by a woman, who is, it goes without saying, a subordinate, may provide grounds for invoking the provocation defence.
Perhaps the typical scenario in which the defence is invoked is that of a married man who discovers his wife having sex with another man and in a “crime of passion” kills – either his wife or the other man or both. We call the murder a crime of passion, but really it’s just an outrage of proprietorship. Of course, maybe that’s what passion is in men: the expression of conquest, and ownership. O. R. Sullivan (“Anger and Excuse: Reassessing Provocation” in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 13, 1993) calls it an “outrage at a failure to dominate” – which also makes sense, given the subordination of women (and the defence’s applicability to men). And Judy Steele (private correspondence) calls it an honor killing (the man’s honor is at stake).
If it really is passion we want to allow, then I should be excused for stealing a painting because I really like it, I’ve studied and admired art all my life, you could say I’m quite passionate about it…
And what exactly is passion, in an ordinary man, except rage – a testosterone tantrum? So we’re legitimizing man’s anger. (‘I was angry.’ ‘Oh well then. That’s okay. The man was angry.’) (No wonder they get angry so often. It’s a get out of jail free ticket.)
In fact, somehow, in our society, an angry man is more of a man than a calm man, let alone a fearful man, a grieving man, and so on. Real men must control their emotions, or, better, not have any (well, except anger). (It’s just a little ironic to allow a defence of emotion to those who pride themselves on not being emotional. Well, except for being angry.)
If we open the door to this unreasoned and unreasonable action, this knee-jerk response, shouldn’t we open the door to all knee-jerk responses? What makes this one so different it excuses murder? If it’s okay to kill someone because you think you own her, shouldn’t it be okay to kill someone because, oh, I don’t know, you think she’s a spy for the aliens? Or because she (or he) called you stupid?
A further indication that this defence is primarily intended for men is that if a sexually unattractive man makes a move on a woman (an insult to our sexual prowess), even an illegal move such as sexual touching without consent, we generally don’t kill the guy. And yet, apparently, an unsolicited homosexual advance can provoke a man to kill. After all, such an unwelcome sexual advance is enough to make you lose control. (Oh yeah? Hm. Let me get my gun. There’s a construction crew outside and a bunch of assholes down at the bar. And another bunch at work.)
I’m also not impressed that with this defence, the act must be done “on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool.” This means we’re condoning a lack of control. It has always puzzled me that premeditated murder is considered worse, not better, than unpremeditated murder.[1] Doing something after some consideration should surely be better than doing something thoughtlessly, without stopping to think about it at all – even if the reasons for the behaviour turn out to be unacceptable ones. (And we should definitely teach kids the difference between acceptable reasons and unacceptable reasons.)
And funny how men seem to lose control only when a perceived-to-be subordinate frustrates their desires. When they lash out at a bigger guy, it’s just a fight. Better to be stupid than shamed? So the provocation defence is just a way out of the shame of ‘picking on’ someone not your own size? [2]
Furthermore, how can such loss of control be both a justification (as when the provocation defence is invoked – in which case what you did isn’t as wrong) and an excuse (as when temporary insanity is invoked – in which case what you did isn’t really your fault)?
Of course, yet another problem with allowing a provocation defence is that it puts at least part of the blame on the provoker. ‘It was her fault. She provoked me.’ I can see this for some situations; blame is often justly shared in a physical altercation. But in a murder? It’s her fault he killed her? Please. She mocks you? She nags? She makes fun of your sperm count? She complains about your failure to get a job, a real job, a good job? She talks to other men? She has sex with them? So call her a bitch and leave. And don’t look back. Send money for your kids or apply for custody if you want to look after them. Or put up with it until they’re sixteen and then leave. But geez louise d’ya have to kill her?
It is not irrelevant that short of the formal provocation defence, provocation is often invoked in sexual assault crimes as well. It’s a way to dodge blame. Not only do we allow this plea of provocation by men, we encourage, we expect, the provocation by women: women are expected to be sexually attractive all the time – to wear sexualizing make-up and attire, even at work. (Though given that men also rape asexualized women – we’ve all read about the 60-70-year-old victims – apparently it’s our fault just for being a woman. Can you say ‘Eve’?) It’s a neat little trick: encourage the provocative behavior, and allow the provocation defence. And yet, as Lucy Reed Harris (“Towards a Consent Standard in the Law of Rape” in University of Chicago Law Review 43, 1976) points out, “although a flagrant display of cash in public may very predictably precipitate a robbery, the law does not hold an alleged robbery victim responsible for his own foolishness in making such a display.” (Unless it were a woman being so foolish?)
When will we insist our boys grow up? If there’s a legitimate reason they lag behind girls in maturity development (and therefore have relatively little control) and language skills (which provide a much better response to an insult), then let’s just say it – they’re the inferior ones. And then let’s follow through, and restrict their access to weapons, for example. (A higher age limit for drinking, and driving, would also be a good idea. And a curfew for two or more men under thirty gathered together.)
[1] In the case of Robert Latimer, for example, the presence of premeditation should’ve made it better: he did not kill Tracy on the spur of the moment, out of anger; he thought about it, long and hard, literally for years, after trying every alternative…
[2] Because if it really is the case that you can’t control yourself, well, we can fix that – we can lock you up and keep you away from others or we can give you drugs that reduce that pesky testosterone.
"We License Plumbers and Pilots - Why Not Parents?"At Issue: Is Parenthood a Right or a Privilege? ed. Stefan Kiesbye (Greenhaven, 2009); Current Controversies: Child Abuse, ed. Lucinda Almond (Thomson/Gale, 2006); Seattle Post-Intelligencer (October 2004)
"A Humanist View of Animal Rights"New Humanist September 99; The New Zealand Rationalist and Humanist Winter 98; Humanist in Canada Winter 97
have been previously published in Canadian Woman Studies, Herizons, Humanist in Canada, The Humanist, and The Philosopher's Magazine - contact Peg for acknowledgement details.
ImpactAn extended confrontation between a sexual assault victim and her assailants, as part of an imagined slightly revised court process, in order to understand why they did what they did and, on that basis, to make a recommendation to the court regarding sentence does not go … as expected.
What Happened to TomTom, like many men, assumes that since pregnancy is a natural part of being a woman, it’s no big deal: a woman finds herself pregnant, she does or does not go through with it, end of story. But then …
Aiding the EnemyWhen Private Ann Jones faces execution for “aiding the enemy,” she points to American weapons manufacturers who sell to whatever country is in the market.
Bang BangWhen a young boy playing “Cops and Robbers” jumps out at a man passing by, the man shoots him, thinking the boy’s toy gun is real. Who’s to blame?
ForeseeableAn awful choice in a time of war. Whose choice was it really?
Exile (full-length drama) Finalist, WriteMovies; Quarterfinalist, Fade-In.
LJ lives in a U . S. of A., with a new Three Strikes Law: first crime, rehab; second crime, prison; third crime, you’re simply kicked out – permanently exiled to a designated remote area, to fend for yourself without the benefits of society. At least he used to live in that new U. S. of A. He’s just committed his third crime.
What Happened to Tom (full-length drama) Semifinalist, Moondance.
This guy wakes up to find his body’s been hijacked and turned into a human kidney dialysis machine – for nine months.
Aiding the Enemy (short drama 15min)
When Private Ann Jones faces execution for “aiding the enemy,” she points to American weapons manufacturers who sell to whatever country is in the market.
Bang Bang (short drama 30min) Finalist, Gimme Credit; Quarter-finalist, American Gem.
When a young boy playing “Cops and Robbers” jumps out at a man passing by, the man shoots him, thinking the boy’s toy gun is real. Who’s to blame?
Foreseeable (short drama 30min)
An awful choice in a time of war. Whose choice was it really?
What is Wrong with this Picture?
Nothing. There’s no reason women can’t be the superordinates and men the subordinates. But life’s not like that (yet).
Minding Our Own Business A collection of skits (including “The Price is Not Quite Right,” “Singin’ in the (Acid) Rain,” “Adverse Reactions,” “The Band-Aid Solution,” and “See Jane. See Dick.”) with a not-so-subtle environmental message
Rot in Hell A soapbox zealot and an atheist face off…
