On November 16, 2005 I was part of a panel speaking at Carleton University on Violence Against Women. My speech was about missing women and I focused in on the missing and murdered sex trade workers in Vancouver and Edmonton.
I've made several attempts to upload the speech here on the blog but whenever I do, it knocks out my entire link section. So, if you'd like to read the article, Bekkie of Seen Me Lately has kindly posted it on her web site about sex trade workers.
http://www.seenmelately.ca/sextradeworkers.html
As usual, I've stated some controversial views. Those who know me and read this blog regularly know that I welcome disagreement and debate. If you have any thoughts after you read it, please come back and make comments here on the blog or in my guestbook.
Thanks :-)
Sigrid
Friday, December 16, 2005
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Reward offered for information on Jennifer Teague
Earl McRae of the Ottawa Sun reported that an anonymous donor has stepped forward to offer a "substantial" amount of money -- possibly as much as $50,000 -- as a reward for anyone who has information on the death and disappearance of 18-year-old Jennifer Teague of Barrhaven, which is part of Metropolitan Ottawa.
McRae also noted that many readers were curious as to why the police had not released any details about the cause of death. He posited some explanations: sometimes people who are unstable or just wish to cause trouble may falsely confess to a crime. If police withhold specific information, it makes it much easier to rule out those false confessions. Moreover, all of the forensics are not in. It's possible that the police still are uncertain of the exact cause of death.
Apparently, 10 investigators have been working diligently on the Teague case and will continue to do so until they find her killer. To quote the end of McRae's column today:
"If you have information, no matter how minor it seems, that might help find the killer of Jennifer Teague, the police want and need to hear from you -- confidentiality guaranteed. E-mail: infojennifer@ottawapolice.ca -- phone (613) 236-1222, ext. 5477."
Sigrid Mac
McRae also noted that many readers were curious as to why the police had not released any details about the cause of death. He posited some explanations: sometimes people who are unstable or just wish to cause trouble may falsely confess to a crime. If police withhold specific information, it makes it much easier to rule out those false confessions. Moreover, all of the forensics are not in. It's possible that the police still are uncertain of the exact cause of death.
Apparently, 10 investigators have been working diligently on the Teague case and will continue to do so until they find her killer. To quote the end of McRae's column today:
"If you have information, no matter how minor it seems, that might help find the killer of Jennifer Teague, the police want and need to hear from you -- confidentiality guaranteed. E-mail: infojennifer@ottawapolice.ca -- phone (613) 236-1222, ext. 5477."
Sigrid Mac
Saturday, December 10, 2005
The Rules by Ellen Fein & Sherrie Schneider - Book Review
Reading The Rules was like sitting in the dental chair - it was painful! I forced myself to read the book because last year I read He's Just Not That into You. I expected to hate that book, too, but I didn't. It was just so laugh-out-loud funny that I couldn't help but like it. Also, the message was clear, albeit simplistic; if a man isn't calling you, he's just not interested.
The Rules is definitely retro. I've heard it described as a book that advocates women going back to the fifties. True enough, but not the 1950s -- the 1850s! I could easily imagine Jane Austen writing this book and young women waiting for their gentleman callers in their mother's parlor.
For those who are not familiar with the material, The Rules are a set of guidelines for women to follow that are designed to prevent them from enduring heartbreak and rejection in love. They consist of the following suggestions:
-- Don't speak to a man first in a social setting. Don't ask him to dance, don't stare at him and definitely, don't call him on the phone! A Rules girl needs to play hard to get.
-- After a man calls you up, don't accept a date unless he's given you ample notice. And don't return his phone call if he happens to get your voicemail. You don't want to seem too eager.
-- Clearly, having sex is not an option. You must wait several months, meanwhile seeing the man no more than two to three times a week. And you will be certified as a suicide relationship bomber if you initiate sex! Don't pay for the date, don't meet him halfway and -- get this -- don't talk on the phone for more than 10 minutes every time he calls you. Pretend to have something else to do so that you seem busy.
-- If you want a man to marry you, don't live with him. Hold out for that ring.
Now, before you dismiss all of this as preposterous, as I was tempted to do, keep in mind that the purpose of the book is to prevent women from suffering. The authors argue that men and women are biologically different and as a result, men need to pursue women. If men don't initiate, they will lose interest. If women don't play hard to get, they will never instill a sense of chronic longing in their man. Moreover, The Rules encourages women to be busy and independent, so that they won't view their man as the center of their existence.
As a longtime feminist who has broken all of the rules all of my life, I must concede that some of them may have merit. Whether it's biological or sociocultural, men are different from women. There is still a double standard in society. If a guy goes after a woman for a year and she shows no interest in him, he is simply persistent. If a woman does the same thing, she's desperate. There's no term for a man who "chases" women because that's what a guy is supposed to do (I'm not talking about a womanizer or a stalker. I'm talking about an ordinary guy going after an ordinary girl/woman.) Why is the word "chase" always used in reference to women, kind of like the words "loose" or "easy?" (Heard of any men who were called sluts recently? I rest my case.)
Now, I think that the double standard is completely wrong and that's why I've always violated it. However, the end result has often been that I have pursued men who were not interested in me, or who have ended up being quite passive later on in the relationship.
In my book, D'Amour Road, my main character has an unrequited crush on a younger man. That scenario resulted directly from my interest in this topic of women pursuing men. Theoretically, it's a good thing. The sexes should be equal. In all of my interactions with men, I always try to treat them the same way that I treat females. But the sad fact is that they're not females, especially when it comes to sex and romance.
If The Rules sound antiquated, they are. But that doesn't mean that they may not be effective. I can't imagine following them all religiously, particularly the one about not returning a man's phone call, which seems incredibly rude. But I can see embracing a modified version of The Rules for self-protection and to simplify my life.
Let's face it. If a guy is interested in me or in you, he can pick up the phone. How hard is that? If we as women keep making the first move -- which should be our right -- how will we know if the man was interested beforehand? Is he just responding to our friendliness? Fein also cautions against revealing too much about yourself during the first month or two. Sounds Stepfordish but if you think about it, why do we need to tell anyone who is brand-new in our life all about the baggage that we carry around day in and day out? That's true of new female friends, new male friends or budding relationships.
Yes, The Rules are at least 150 years out of date and they are extremely irritating and disheartening to anyone with a feminist or postmodern perspective, but I found them to have *some* redeeming value. And I'm going to test them out, just for the hell of it.
Sigrid Mac
The Rules is definitely retro. I've heard it described as a book that advocates women going back to the fifties. True enough, but not the 1950s -- the 1850s! I could easily imagine Jane Austen writing this book and young women waiting for their gentleman callers in their mother's parlor.
For those who are not familiar with the material, The Rules are a set of guidelines for women to follow that are designed to prevent them from enduring heartbreak and rejection in love. They consist of the following suggestions:
-- Don't speak to a man first in a social setting. Don't ask him to dance, don't stare at him and definitely, don't call him on the phone! A Rules girl needs to play hard to get.
-- After a man calls you up, don't accept a date unless he's given you ample notice. And don't return his phone call if he happens to get your voicemail. You don't want to seem too eager.
-- Clearly, having sex is not an option. You must wait several months, meanwhile seeing the man no more than two to three times a week. And you will be certified as a suicide relationship bomber if you initiate sex! Don't pay for the date, don't meet him halfway and -- get this -- don't talk on the phone for more than 10 minutes every time he calls you. Pretend to have something else to do so that you seem busy.
-- If you want a man to marry you, don't live with him. Hold out for that ring.
Now, before you dismiss all of this as preposterous, as I was tempted to do, keep in mind that the purpose of the book is to prevent women from suffering. The authors argue that men and women are biologically different and as a result, men need to pursue women. If men don't initiate, they will lose interest. If women don't play hard to get, they will never instill a sense of chronic longing in their man. Moreover, The Rules encourages women to be busy and independent, so that they won't view their man as the center of their existence.
As a longtime feminist who has broken all of the rules all of my life, I must concede that some of them may have merit. Whether it's biological or sociocultural, men are different from women. There is still a double standard in society. If a guy goes after a woman for a year and she shows no interest in him, he is simply persistent. If a woman does the same thing, she's desperate. There's no term for a man who "chases" women because that's what a guy is supposed to do (I'm not talking about a womanizer or a stalker. I'm talking about an ordinary guy going after an ordinary girl/woman.) Why is the word "chase" always used in reference to women, kind of like the words "loose" or "easy?" (Heard of any men who were called sluts recently? I rest my case.)
Now, I think that the double standard is completely wrong and that's why I've always violated it. However, the end result has often been that I have pursued men who were not interested in me, or who have ended up being quite passive later on in the relationship.
In my book, D'Amour Road, my main character has an unrequited crush on a younger man. That scenario resulted directly from my interest in this topic of women pursuing men. Theoretically, it's a good thing. The sexes should be equal. In all of my interactions with men, I always try to treat them the same way that I treat females. But the sad fact is that they're not females, especially when it comes to sex and romance.
If The Rules sound antiquated, they are. But that doesn't mean that they may not be effective. I can't imagine following them all religiously, particularly the one about not returning a man's phone call, which seems incredibly rude. But I can see embracing a modified version of The Rules for self-protection and to simplify my life.
Let's face it. If a guy is interested in me or in you, he can pick up the phone. How hard is that? If we as women keep making the first move -- which should be our right -- how will we know if the man was interested beforehand? Is he just responding to our friendliness? Fein also cautions against revealing too much about yourself during the first month or two. Sounds Stepfordish but if you think about it, why do we need to tell anyone who is brand-new in our life all about the baggage that we carry around day in and day out? That's true of new female friends, new male friends or budding relationships.
Yes, The Rules are at least 150 years out of date and they are extremely irritating and disheartening to anyone with a feminist or postmodern perspective, but I found them to have *some* redeeming value. And I'm going to test them out, just for the hell of it.
Sigrid Mac
Friday, December 09, 2005
Tribute to Jennifer Teague
36-year-old Todd Sterling from Elliot Lake is a songwriter, who was deeply moved by the tragic disappearance and death of 18-year-old Jennifer Teague from Barrhaven, Ontario. So moved, in fact, that Sterling wrote a song about her called "Jennifer's Song."
Earl McRae of the Ottawa Sun described the process that Sterling went through when he took his song down to Nashville and sold it to professionals under the name "September's Child." Despite the name change, Todd Sterling maintained that the song was for Jennifer, and he gave a copy of it to her father, Ed Teague, who was deeply moved.
You can listen to Jennifer's Song at www.soundclick.com/toddsterling.
Right on, Todd. How beautiful of you.
Sigrid Mac
P. S. Still no arrests or suspects in the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
