Fighting serves no purpose. But we keep doing it anyway. Because a lot of us like it. And often times we fight because of fucking. Sometimes we think that fighting will lead to fucking. Like if we fight over money and power and influence and we win, we’ll be rich and powerful and influential and more people will want to fuck us. Other times we fight because nobody is fucking us and that makes us mad. And a few of us fight because we would rather fight than fuck, because violence is all the pleasure and excitement we’ll ever need. Most of all though, we’ll fight to protect our right to fuck or to secure a safe and free place in which we can have fucking and everything that goes along with it, like a partner and children and a home.

Fucking, on the other hand, does have a purpose. It can be fun. And, more importantly, fucking makes more people. But the problem with fucking is that then those new people grow up and learn to fight and fuck just like everyone else and the whole production starts all over again. And even if those new people, created by fucking, grew up to be peaceful generous people, fucking would still be the root of all our problems because we don’t do it the way we should.

Jesus. Is there a way we ought to be fucking that we don’t know about?

Well we could find a way to do it that doesn’t result in creating quite so many new human beings. Because a few new human beings is good. Even necessary. But too many new human beings means that there is less of other stuff to go around. Stuff like food and water and space and money and dignity and survival. And when that situation arises, as it often does, we have to fight to grab what little we can before some other fucker snatches it up. Other times fucking can make us sick, which circumvents fighting altogether because it kills us without any fighting ever having taken place. The reason we get sick from fucking is also that we don’t do it the right way.

Coincidentally, the countries on Earth which have the most people getting sick and dying as a result of fucking also often happen to be the countries in which the most people die as a result of fighting. Make of that what you will.

Now I guess a little bit of fighting wouldn’t be so bad and with a couple of alterations to practice, fucking could go on unabated without doing any damage. But at this point in time, at every point in time to date in fact, we have fought and fucked to excess and with reckless abandon. Which could almost be admirable, if it weren’t so destructively over-the-top.

Why we fight and fuck beyond our logical capacity I don’t know. Like, I’m not a psych major because I don’t have the head for neuro-science. But the fact of the matter is that whether we have a good reason for it or not, that’s what we do. And I don’t see us stopping anytime soon. We have too many people telling us that we have to fight for one reason or another, often so that those people who tell us what to do can avoid fighting themselves and get back to fucking. We also have too many people telling us exactly how to fuck and that fucking in any other way is bad for us, bud, because it will anger God or otherwise hurt us in some way. Coincidentally, the people who tell us to fight never actually do any fighting themselves, and the people who tell us how to fuck never actually do any fucking themselves. But we trust their judgment in these matters anyway.

And I don’t really know where we go from here, you know. I mean, this is sort of the end of self-analysis, because that’s sort of the be all and end all of causality – the ultimate problem statement. Fighting and fucking. I also don’t think that this is one of those cases where a rhetorical solution is good enough. Like, we can say that we’ll try to curb fighting and fuck only in a manner that does not make people sick or over-populate Earth, but I don’t see people being all that receptive to being told how to perform two of their favourite pastimes. Maybe we’re at least on the right track now that we know what the problem is, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Related posts:

1. Right or wrong, opinions are vital
2. What’s wrong with Canada

It’s kind of funny how you state yourself as a (white) straight man and then so rightfully declare, “I do not feel that McMaster needs a Women’s Center.” No Adam, you wouldn’t. Seeing as you fit so perfectly into the category of people who are always placed at an advantage in this society. If you weren’t aware, every place on campus is a Man’s Center! 

Regardless of the details, or lack thereof, of the proposed Women’s Center, the concept is to establish a safe place for women and trans people. One that would not only provide a gathering space, free support, referrals and resources but promote community involvement, activism and awareness for issues that affect our campus and our society as a whole. Simply because you would not directly benefit from this center does not mean it is not a necessary and worthwhile endeavor. 

I agree, we as a student body are one group, represented by one union. But that is not to assume that collectively we have the same feelings, needs or experiences. To squeeze us into one category is to deny the differences of our experiences of gender, race, class or ability. Claiming that we are stronger as an undivided group is to reduce the diversity of our community to the usual dominant, straight, white, male experience. The ones who suffer are those that don’t fit so nicely into that category. 

What the center does not intend to do is segregate the McMaster community but merely establish a place for those who already feel segregated to find a sense of commonality and understanding. If this to you is in blatant disagreement with what a student’s union is then maybe you have never heard of the concept of “taking one for the team.” In contrast, for me, this is exactly what a student’s union is about, addressing the needs of students, especially those who don’t swim with the mainstream.  

It is easy for you to say that these issues are ones that can and should be discussed in an open forum. And certainly they are, but having never experienced that kind of violence or injustice, can you say you would so easily and openly discuss those experiences? You even mention extreme examples such as rape and abortion, without even considering that this is the very reality of many women. Yes, even those that attend McMaster University. 

 And frankly, to feel uncomfortable about discussing an abortion is not to betray every girl who ever had one, but a normal and warranted response given the negative stigmas associated with it. Contrary to what you may think, a Women’s Center is not about a bunch of girls huddled in isolation, whispering about rape and abortion, but a place for women to gain the acceptance and empowerment needed in order to discuss these issues openly. 

The fact that McMaster University is one of the few universities to not already have a Women’s Center speaks volumes. The fact that this referendum is being pushed forward without a concrete plan from the administration can only be interpreted as an insincere and futile attempt on behalf of the MSU to raise this issue. The fact that the response of the public is either unnecessary or indifferent only proves how far we are from working towards a more inclusive and tolerant McMaster community. 

Finally Adam, I agree that these are issues that need to be confronted head on in order to make the world a better place, but without a Women’s Center at Mac, who do you expect to bring these issues to the table?

Related posts:

1. A Response to Adam Owen
2. Women’s Center Article

I believe that the proposed women’s centre could be not only an important space, but a valuable resource for women and transgendered people within the McMaster community. I am saddened, Adam, that you do not feel the same way.

In response to some of the arguments put forth, the women’s centre would not act as an advocate for further gendered divisions. It would serve to acknowledge the divisions that are already in existence, and therefore create a safe space for women and transgendered people affected by those patriarchal structures. The women’s centre would not promote segregation to further illuminate oppressor and oppressed relationships, but would acknowledge that a “blank, grey abyss, devoid of discourse” is not a reality.

I was personally offended by Adam’s argument that “promoting isolation in the name of safety is an affront to the principles of the university itself.” The women’s centre would not act as a space of isolation, nor would it be a place for women to hide from the patriarchal values still implicit within society and the university setting. Perhaps through this opportunity for an establishment of a larger community of women and transgendered people, we can together, more effectively combat those repressive values.

While Owen’s interest in women’s issues could be commendable, his pursuit of knowledge should not come at the expense of those who feel that the public sphere is not yet a safe enough space for addressing issues such as rape and abortion. Of course I wish that gendered, racial, and sexual equality was a current reality, but it is not. One cannot force equal opportunity and equal experiences. By pretending that the public sphere of the university is somehow currently conducive to all people is a very ignorant perspective. I, like you Adam, wish that it were. However, pretending that it is so, does not remove the need for a women’s centre, nor the need for a further examination of the power relations embedded within society. 

From your straight, white male perspective, I can understand why you might believe that attacking societal norms “head on in an attempt at making the world a better place” could be the most valuable means in which to confront systematic and overt oppression. I encourage you, however, to empathize with those of us who do not have the luxury living within, and therefore framing our understandings through, your place within the dominant hegemonic discourse.

Related posts:

1. Response to Owen Article
2. A Response to Adam Owen

The single valid point that I think Owen made was that the proposition for the Women’s Centre is still extremely raw, and that it is not at all ready to be voted on. I think that the ambiguity of the proposal will prevent it from succeeding at the referendum because not only are students unsure of what they’re voting on exactly, but there are several clauses within it that desperately need revision (such as the lack of actual building space to run the Centre from).

Logistics aside, it is impossible to deny that women need a venue to discuss issues that relate to them as a gender which subject to the patriarchal values that dictate our society. We are not, as Owen stated, one unified group. We are a species that has exponentially more male Presidents and Prime Ministers, men who make more money and who sit at the heads of tables. And as long as Mr. Owen is a male, he won’t understand what it is to be ostracized by the very system women are forced to navigate. 

My stand-point can be better justified by viewing the student union as a microcosm of greater society, where every citizen pays taxes and contributes to the infrastructure of our cities and towns. We pool together the funds that we collect from every citizen and then appropriate them towards various causes: maintaining our sidewalks, providing education and health care, as well as a slew of other social services that exist to address disparities within the city. The student union works very much in the same way. The measly dollar per student that it would take to fund a Women’s Centre would go toward providing invaluable services that address the specific needs of women.

I understand the argument that the Women’s Centre would be partly funded by male students who would not be able to access the resources that it would provide, but the reality of it is that we all pay for services that will never apply to us in our lifetimes, and this is what it means to be part of a collective. Certain people utilize social services more than others, and although that might not seem fair, the services exist to empower minority groups that inarguably do not have the same access to opportunities than other groups. 

Taking into account that Owen was writing from a “straight man’s perspective,” he is inadvertently arguing against having services that support the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered community as well. By labeling himself as a straight male, Owen is denying the need for him to exercise G.L.B.T. services, does that mean that we shouldn’t fund a G.L.B.T. group on campus?

The statement “the issues at hand (extreme examples such as rape or abortion come to mind) would be better served discussed in the public sphere,” is a perfect testament to the ignorance of Owen’s argument. The idea that women should feel comfortable talking about such trauma in the public sphere is ludicrous, and an obvious indication that he made no effort to understand the guilt and shame associated with those cases. Furthermore, to refer to the inability to talk about these topics in an open forum as “betraying every girl who will follow the same path,” is essentially channeling blame onto women themselves.

There is room for discourse surrounding these topics, but not in the capacity that Owen is referring to. The discussion should be centered around prevention of abuse and the fostering of positive feminine ideals, not used as a means of further victimizing women. A Women’s Centre would provide a safe space to engage in this discourse as a means of empowerment, and is not at all the gender segregation that Owen implied. 

At the very minimum, Owen should appreciate a service that would be there to support the women in his life. To deny the need for this group is in fact, exactly what it is to be a chauvinist.

Related posts:

1. Response to Owen Article
2. Women’s Center Article

In that spirit, please help me understand the myriad of issues surrounding pop star Rihanna’s run in with the dirty little secret known as domestic violence, and the ensuing media circus.

I also hope that my opposition on philosophical grounds to the creation of a student funded women’s centre does not appear at odds with my opposition to domestic violence in general. The chauvinism of which I have been accused is not, like all subjective issues, black and white, as extremists on all sides of all contentious issues attempt to make it.

My mind is blown at so many aspects of the whole case. Most pertinent, I feel, is the circus itself. Why does it take two international recording artists to bring this issue into the public’s mind? We fully understand the irony that the Silhouette is also joining in the circus, but hopefully we can take advantage of the prominent place this issue now holds in the public consciousness.

When one in four women will suffer domestic abuse at some point in their lives, this isn’t a case where we need a spokesperson. This isn’t a Rock Hudson moment. The public is already intimately conscious of an aspect of society that is arguably systemic. If it doesn’t happen in your own house, chances are it happens in the house of someone you know. And yet, here we are, not discussing the fact that a man hit a woman, but that Chris Brown hit Rihanna. Our interest in the issue is limited only to the fact that rarely we can talk about domestic abuse around the water cooler. Sadly, once the media cycle repeats itself, we will move onto another moral issue de jour.  Tina, Whitney, and now Rihanna are talking points when they should be points of action.

With word that the Nickelodeon Kid’s Choice Awards Program is standing by Brown and not revoking his nomination at the risk of validating a man guilty of assaulting a woman in the eyes of children around the world, the perverted truth becomes clear that any publicity is good publicity. Now adults who would never have watched the program will tune in just to be a part of the conversation the next day. Domestic abuse is profitable in the eyes of the same media that simultaneously wags a finger with one hand, and pockets the cash with the other.

Unfortunately, the one glaring similarity that this instance bears to the rest is that the object (grammatically, not chauvinistically) of the issue, Rihanna, is characteristically silent. With reports that she has reconciled and possibly married Brown, criticism abounds. Is this a case of “blaming the victim” or is it a reasonable argument? I understand that a feeling of helplessness is natural, but given her target audience and the aforementioned media circus, is it acceptable to be disappointed in her handling of her status as a role model that women and future women look up to?

I also want to state my belief that this issue will remain stagnant until we start thinking of it, and other issues like it, not just as women’s issues, but as issues that affect us all in kind. People say that perpetrators of this sort of violence must be confronted, but for those of us who it never affected directly, shouldn’t we take the time to call our fathers, brothers, and uncles and thank them for not bringing it into our houses and our lives? It’s problematic to expect kudos for not breaking the law, but when the majority of agents of domestic violence themselves come from homes where it occurred, as men who did not experience it growing up, we should recognize and thank our fathers for setting an example of true masculinity.

I want to know the answers to these delicate but important questions, but I want them answered out and in the open. Send in your thoughts and let’s not let this issue drift away into the realm of dirty little secrets.

Related posts:

1. Working Against Domestic Abuse
2. Abuse Can Happen to Men Too

I am not a chauvinist. I feel it is necessary to issue a pre-emptive self-defence despite its invariable impotence given the next sentence. I do not feel that McMaster needs a Women’s Centre.

Ignoring the fact that the question has not been settled on, the services provided have not been agreed upon, and the physical location on campus has not been decided, The proposed Women’s Centre would be off limits to straight men, and I cannot support any measure that seeks to divide students as a cure for existing divisions.

Yes, I am looking at this from a straight man’s perspective, but it’s the only one I’ve got, so even if it’s inadmissible to some, it works for me. I don’t see this as an issue of feminism or hegemony, nor will I employ the tired “What about a Man’s Centre?” defence. I simply see this as an issue related to my perspective of what a student union is: a union of students.

The McMaster Students’ Union, in my mind, exists to tackle the issues that affect us all in kind. To use our money in funding a space that only a few of us will be allowed to use is a betrayal of the word ‘union.’

We are one group, and to cut us up, even along the perforated edges of years of injustice, makes us all smaller and weaker. In a way, allowing (encouraging, even) students to surround themselves with those who are like them feeds a banality that hurts us even more than the hegemony-mandated segregation of years past. Then, there was a clear victim and a clear oppressor. Now, there would be nothing more than a blank, gray abyss, devoid of discourse.

As easy as it is for me to say, I feel that the issues at hand (extreme examples such as rape or abortion come to mind) would be better served discussed in the public sphere.  

So you feel uncomfortable discussing having had an abortion to the point where you feel only safe discussing it with an isolated group. Are you not then, betraying every girl who will follow the same path, and will now feel only comfortable talking to the same shadows? Again, I realize this is easy for me to say, but I still want to know. How many rapes go unreported every year? I don’t know. I want to know, but the only way I ever will know is, unironically, if those rapes get reported, not in the isolation of a Women’s Centre, but in the public square.

I understand that it is hard, and also, that I have no ability to understand how hard it would be. I, however, feel that promoting isolation in the name of safety is an affront to the principles of the university itself.

We come together from many cities, from many ideologies, and from many tiers of power, not to retreat back to comfortable surroundings and shy away from the realities that cause us harm, but to attack them head on in an attempt at making the world a better place for those who will one day follow.

I feel that a Women’s Centre on campus would accomplish the exact opposite of what we need to be doing, which is providing grounds for discourse.

Related posts:

1. Response to Owen Article
2. A Response to Adam Owen