By now, all of us are aware of the tragic circumstances of Rehtaeh Parsons’ rape, torment, and suicide. I don’t need to provide the details of what happened to her. To be honest, and perhaps selfishly so, I know I can’t bear to write about it.

Because this isn’t the first time we have written about the suffering of a young girl, victimized by the very rape culture we are subjected to daily. We do this on what seems like a weekly basis: another teenage girl, another heartbreaking story, another sad ending.

So as we have done in the past – with Amanda Todd in British Columbia – and as we do now with Audrie Pott in California, we grieve. We grieve for the life of a girl who never really had a chance to live. We pain for her family; bewildered by what they had to go through and offering them our sympathy. We take comfort that now, maybe….just maybe… justice will prevail. That, for Rehtaeh, the Canadian system will do as it is supposed to do.

Rehtaeh Parsons died Sunday, nearly 18 months after an alleged rape by four high school boys. (Facebook)

I live where, sadly, Rehtaeh used to lived. Not in Nova Scotia per say, but in New Brunswick – its neighboring province. We, including Prince Edward Island, make up the Maritime Provinces of Canada; full of kind and compassionate people, surrounded by wild and unscathed beauty, with a population of only about 2 million.

But despite all the raw grandeur and the tight-knit communities of our region remains a very stark reality: a situation like Rehtaeh’s is not uncommon.

1 in 4 North American women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. But in the Maritimes, the rates of violence are higher than the already staggering average – violence against women is among the highest in the country and resources to help are frighteningly limited.

In Fredericton, New Brunswick, where I currently live, I have an 88% higher chance  of being sexually assaulted than in the rest of the country. Third highest in the country. The first? Saint John, New Brunswick (an approximate 1.5 hour drive from Fredericton), where women have a 132% higher than average chance of being sexually assault.

Yet, knowing that less than 1 in 10 sexual assaults that occur in Canada are actually reported, lower than any other violent crime, how many more acts of sexual violence are occurring in the Maritimes – my home – without us knowing? How many more women around me are suffering in silence?

The terrifying question remains: How worse off are we?

Because this is what the culture of rape is all about: isolating women, victimizing women, shaming women. It tells us that, for things to get better, we must change. It tells us that the growing rates of sexual assault are our fault.

Just as Rehtaeh continues to be blamed in the form of posters for support of the boys who assaulted her, all women are blamed for the sexual violence that is committed against us.

But the reality is it is society who is to blame.

• Society tells us that we are increasingly guilty of making false rape accusations, although research proves it’s a rarity.
• Society tells us that if a man is guilty of rape he will be held responsible, although statistics show us that sexual assault is the least likely of all violent crimes in Canada to result in a conviction.
• Society tells us that the police will find evidence if an assault takes place, although the justice system shows us that the prevalence of ‘unfounding’ in sexual assault cases, a finding of ‘a crime not committed’ by police, is highly variable across Canadian regions. In fact, such rates have been criticized for lack of consistency.

And society limits our sources of support.

• The only Planned Parenthood in the Province of New Brunswick closed its doors in 2006.
• The New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women was abolished by the provincial government in 2011.
• Funding to the capital city’s sexual health services was severely cut in 2011.
• Abortion services are also limited: no surgical abortions can take place on Prince Edward Island and the Morgentaler clinic, the Maritime’s only public abortion clinic, is not deemed ‘medically necessary’ and therefore not provincially funded.

In fact, rather than making services more accessible, and rather than providing funding to the limited services that are already available to us, New Brunswick politicians suggest creating ‘women only’ parking spots. It’s laughable, except that the neglect of women throughout the Maritime provinces is no laughing matter.

We are, as Alexandra at Feministing so poignantly said, “in a state of emergency”. The Maritime Provinces have been stuck in this ‘state’ for quite some time, and I for one have had enough.

I am tired of being scared in my home, and I am tired of being blamed for feeling the way I do.

What we have learned from this horrible situation is that to achieve justice for all of us – whether we live in the Maritimes, throughout Canada, or anywhere else in the world –we must get angry, we must demand change as did after hearing about Rehtaeh.

So, to the men and women of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island: be concerned, get angry, start acting. It’s time for change. Please – start conversations in your communities, form rallies, write letters. It’s Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Let’s make the most of it.

For assistance in the Maritime Provinces:

In New Brunswick

• Fredericton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre
• Let’s Talk about It Campaign

In Nova Scotia

• Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women
• Nova Scotia Domestic Violence Resource Centre
• Halifax Sexual Health (formerly Planned Parenthood)
• Avalon Sexual Assault Centre
• Antigonish Women’s Centre

In Prince Edward Island

• PEI Rape and Sexual Assault Centre
• PEI Advisory Council on the Status of Women

I have a ‘forever family’. It consists of a mom, and dad, and me – their adopted daughter. I grew up in a permanent ‘forever home’ with a loving, supportive family in much the same way other children do with their biological parents.

And with all this love and support I was able to grow into a healthy child who played basketball, roller-bladed, and begged to quit ballet shortly after my very first lesson (you just can’t do a lay-up in a tutu). With the backing of a dedicated support system I was granted every opportunity to flourish into what I consider to be a (relatively) successful adult.

My parents and I don’t share blood, medical histories, or DNA but instead share a bond much deeper than any non-adopted family could possibly begin to understand.  And for that, the privilege that was granted, I’m incredibly lucky, as are many of the 1.5 million Americans who have been adopted into what I hope are similarly loving ‘forever homes’.

But often times I sit back and think about what my life would have been like if my ‘forever family’ hadn’t found me. Who would I have become? Would I have had the chance to go to university? Would I have had the security of knowing that, just a phone call away, I would have a family member who would be willing to help me fight any battle?  Would I even get a birthday card? Or would I have been just another child caught without a sense of permanency, caught within a flawed social system?

Thankfully I wasn’t. And while I’m grateful to all those who had a part in granting me my present-day reality it is tragically not the norm.

Worldwide, adoption is still very rare; the United Nations estimates that 260,000 adoptions occur each year, which equates to fewer than 12 adoptions out of every 100,000 children under the age of 18. What this results in is 13 million double orphans (children who have lost both parents) in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean who lack ‘forever families’.

13 million.

Let me put this into perspective. In Africa alone, it is estimated that the current rate of domestic adoption would need to be multiplied by 2000 in order to guarantee the approximate 8 million African orphans are adopted into permanent homes. Globally, the number of adoptions of AIDS-related orphans would need to be increased by a factor of 60.

Another 119 million children are single orphans (children who have lost one parent) and may also require adoption into permanent homes.

Within the United States, more than 250,000 children are forced into the foster system each and every year. Approximately half of these children will return to family members, leaving approximately 105,000 children stuck in limbo: with luck finding their ‘forever families’, or, like the nearly 20,000 children in the US, aging out of the foster system, without one. In Canada the situation is not much better: over 78,000 children are still waiting for permanent homes.

This isn’t the first time I’ve spoken about my adoption, the need for increased awareness about adoption, or the importance of viewing adoption as pro-choice. But over the past two months we have been witness to a new intensification of the adoption debate. Or at least, in my opinion it has. It’s time to talk about it.

We have a new Pope. For us non-Catholics this doesn’t exactly change anything; I doubt any of us, particularly in the feminist world, anticipated a newfound acceptance of our ‘liberal values’ – a modernization of old conservative, misogynist worldviews. But what Pope Francis brings is a particular dislike for same-sex marriage, which he declared a “destructive attack on God’s plan” although coming from a country which has openly accepted same-sex marriage since 2010 (a year, in fact, before New York did). But perhaps even more appalling, Pope Francis has a particular hatred for same-sex adoption.

Not that the Vatican has even really been a fan of same-sex adoption either. In fact, just weeks before the election of Pope Francis, the Vatican once again voiced its distaste for same-sex adoption, believing that children should grow up in “the ordinary way…with a father and mother”.

According to Pope Francis, same-sex adoption is not wrong simply because it’s not ‘ordinary’; to him, the adoption of children by same-sex couples is a “form of discrimination against children”.

But what’s obvious to me is the Pope’s misunderstanding of the term discrimination. Perhaps if he had a more formal understanding of what it means to be discriminated against he would view this situation a little differently, a little less harshly…or simply with a little more compassion.

So let me provide a definition:

Discrimination, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex”.

So, the academic in me could say that we could perhaps validate the Pope’s ‘discriminatory’ view of same-sex adopted children if there was evidence to suggest that children adopted by same-sex couples were at risk. Lacking. Limited. Affected negatively in any way by the sexual orientation of their parents.

But here’s the problem: there is none. Empirical evidence supporting the Pope’s ‘discriminatory’ standpoint just doesn’t exist. Thirty years of extensive research finds nothing to suggest that children of same-sex parents are any less likely to thrive. Excel. Be loved in the exact say same that I did with heterosexual parents.

• In fact, on March 20^th the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement regarding their opinion of same-sex parenting based on previous experimental evidence. In their view, it is “in the best interest of children that they be able to partake in the security of permanent nurturing and care that comes with the civil marriage of parents, without regard to their parents’ gender or sexual orientation”.
• The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and other professional healthcare organizations all agree that “same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual parents to raise children and their children are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of heterosexual parents” . They insist, to believe otherwise is, “inconsistent with the scientific evidence”.

So, who is really being ‘discriminated’ by discouraging adoptions by same-sex couples? The LGBT couples who wish to offer ‘forever homes’ to deserving children, and the deserving children wanting to find ‘forever families’.

Because what those against same-sex adoption and, by virtue same-sex marriage, are essentially suggesting is that children like me – children who have, by no fault of their own, and for reasons mostly unknown to them, been placed for adoption are not deserving of a loving family.

It is better, says those who believe in the ‘abomination’ of same-sex adoption, that millions of children around the world grow up without ‘forever families’ than to live with a loving couple, who by no fault of their own, just happen to be of the same sex.

People who don’t support same-sex marriage, or the adoption of children by same-sex couples, are in essence denying both deserving children and deserving couples the right to a ‘forever family’. I can find nothing Christian about that, nothing moral about it, and nothing just. This, in my albeit very biased opinion, is the very essence of discrimination.

In the words of Ezra Klein, “adoption by gay couples is one of the best arguments for gay marriage”. Well said, because as far as I’m concerned I would much rather grow up with a ‘forever family’ that happens to have two moms, or two dads, than to live without one.

Photo credit  DaveFayram  via Creative Commons

Over the past two weeks, the HBO show ‘Girls’ has focused on the mental health challenges of Hannah. We have been introduced to Hannah’s secret – her shameful struggle with anxiety characterized by obsessive tendencies, a necessity to repeat tasks 8 times, often until the point of embarrassment, injury (as we saw last week), and exhaustion.

In the past, many TV shows have attempted to portray the realities of those struggling to maintain good mental health. These portrayals are often inaccurate, used as the butt of jokes, dangerously perpetuating the stigma too often associated with mental health related struggles. As a recent example, a character on Glee ‘developed’ bulimia, as if to assume that an eating disorder is chosen and then easily eradicated. Such misinformation and lack of seriousness is dangerous – it stops those in need from seeking help from supportive others; it has been estimated that the majority of those with a mental health concern choose to conceal their struggles and avoid professional help. It keeps far too many isolated; 2 out of every 5 people experiencing a mood, anxiety, or substance use disorder will seek assistance. It reduces quality of life.

But to my surprise, ‘Girls’ nailed it. Finally! Mainstream TV discussed a mental illness and did it in the right way; it wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t cured after one session or dose of a magic pill, and discussing it wasn’t funny, or natural, or easy. Hannah struggled. Hannah was shamed. Blamed. Hindered. The mental health community was elated. Having admitted to similar struggles, Lena Dunham portrayed her own experiences with mental illness, and in rare fashion, did it in a way that urged those needing help to reach out and find it.

As someone who has been challenged by maintaining mental health (for a quick and dirty summary of my mental health history you can read a previous post) and is now involved in the mental health community in various capacities, I was excited to hear the response from the feminist community. Surely a story line involving a powerful yet empowering discussion of a ubiquitous health concern that affects nearly half of the world’s population would lead to discussion.

I waited…and it didn’t come. There have been ‘Girls’ related posts about the abortion episode, her consistent nakedness, and a general discussion of virginity. Yet, a raw and accurate portrayal of mental illness went virtually unnoticed by the feminist community. In fact, one of the only pieces I read discussing the ‘Girls’ mental health story line  joked that the writers may have considered calling one of the episodes “Crazy Eights” (poking fun at Hannah’s painstaking compulsion to repeat tasks in sets of 8), and referred to her as “mentally ill” in comparison to her “mentally chill” ex-boyfriend.

I was initially disappointed. Now I’m just sad.

Over the past several decades, feminists have united together with the common goal of bringing a voice to all too common gendered issues: reproductive rights, violence, and income inequality. Brave women, then and now, have made incredible ground on these complex and all too deserving societal issues.

But just as these issues which far too often inhibit the livelihood of women has required us to fight, so too does mental health.

Why? Because mental health is a gendered problem.

The prevalence of common mental illness (examples include anxiety and depression) is significantly higher among women. The World Health Organization suggests that unipolar depression is twice as common in women and is thought to become the second leading cause of worldwide disability by 2020. The culture of violence, too, has resulted in women becoming the largest group to struggle with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

And even when we have the ability to seek assistance, which is a rarity, our gender creates a barrier to appropriate treatment. The paternalism of our medical system continues to negatively impact women. We are much more likely to be diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication as treatment, even when men score similarly on assessment tests. We are also nearly 3 times more likely to be diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. The over representation of women in psychological areas is heightened among women of colour and low economics.

And let’s not forget society’s depiction of postpartum depression, sordidly referred to as the ‘baby blues’, as if to infer that ‘mom is just a little sad’ and it isn’t a very real, very common, and very hazardous psychological concern.

There are significant gender inequalities within mental health. We have fought barriers in order to discuss other taboo subjects, so why aren’t we talking about this?

I know we have a lot of battles to fight, but we have to fight this one. The well-being of millions of women, around the world, are depending on it.

Photocredit:  HBO ‘Girls’ via wikimedia commons

I have had the honour of helping to facilitate groups for university women with eating disorders and eating issues for the past 4 years.

Each week, for a six-week period, we come together to discuss our stories; detailing our successes, our challenges, our joys, and our heartbreak. For a short moment in time we offer each other a small window into each others’ lives, a glimpse into our personal struggles with an all-encompassing and misunderstood illness. We offer each other more than an ear – the collective provides support, understanding, and encouragement. We unite in our common experiences.

And while facilitating such a group is, by far, one of the greatest roles and most fulfilling experiences I have ever been fortunate to have, the sixth and final session is always difficult. Sure, I’m sad to say goodbye; connecting with a group full of intelligent, articulate, and unquestionably strong women creates a quick, palpable bond. However, the reality of what the end of our group means is much more heart-rending.

We walk out of the safety of our group into a world that is not as open, not as accepting, not as kind. We enter into a society that doesn’t understand, and doesn’t seem to want to take the time to.

We may want to turn to the ones we love – the ones who are supposed to understand us the best – for support as we attempt to battle this seemingly relentless disease. We want a physician to help us make sense of it, and tell us how to fight back. We want our friends to hug us on the bad days, celebrate with us on the good days, cry with us when crying is all we can hope to do.

But for some of us, we may feel we have no one we can turn to. We may feel the type of support we want is just not there. For others, we may be too afraid to talk.

As omnipresent as they are, affecting about 20 million of us and an additional 10 million men, and despite the fact that rates have been rising since the 1950’s, eating disorders are still an unspeakable illness.

It is this very absence of conversation that has resulted in the societal misconstructions and lack of understanding that is far too often associated with eating disorders. Sure, eating disorders are just as susceptible to the usual stigma that accompanies mental health concerns. But what sets eating disorders apart from other mental illnesses is that they are perceived by many to be the result of choice. A volition, of sorts, in human suffering.

The world around us continues to blame, shame, discriminate, doubt, and dismiss us. For some, limiting the harmful words, avoiding the endless explanations, and evading the constant judgment is all-to important. Concealing the illness may seem necessary.

But staying quiet and limiting help has terrifying consequences. Eating disorders and issues, currently divided into Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia Nervosa, Binge Eating Disorder, and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified are serious mental illnesses that can significantly impact the long-term health and well being of those who struggle. They are detrimental to all facets of life; they fracture relationships, damage families, destroy bodies, impair dreams, and steal souls. Early identification and intervention are vital to the promotion of health; concealing an eating disorder and limiting help seeking can worsen symptoms and complicate recovery.

This isn’t just a public health concern, it’s a human rights concern. Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of all psychiatric conditions, with it being the third most common chronic illness among young women. Anorexia Nervosa will, over the course of the illness, kill one in ten women struggling with the disease. We take to the streets to speak against violence, inequality, and reproductive justice, so why not because of this? Is the marginalization these women face in our communities, because of a disease, not deserving of public action?

Eating Disorder Awareness Week is upon us; in Canada: February 3^rd – 9^th, in the United Kingdom: February 11^th – 17^th, and in the United States: February 24^th – March 2^nd. This week is about starting the conversation; promoting awareness and encouraging education. Perhaps more importantly, this week provides a voice for the millions who struggle, and the multitude who do so in silence.

Please, take this week to educate yourself, inform others, and start the conversation. Remind the silent millions that they aren’t so alone and help make it safer for them to gain their own voice.

Photo credit dreamsjung via the Creative Commons License.

I have been in therapy, off and on, for the past six years.

In hindsight, I would describe the younger Kathleen as anxious, worried, and concerned about the future. As I got older, I became a perfectionist; one of those over-achieving kids who never felt as though they were ‘getting it right’. In university I began to develop obsessive tendencies – tapping light switches five times, checking locked doors five times, pushing the fridge door closed five times. Always patterns of five.

For a long time it was controllable so I figured it was normal. Besides, we all have our quirks. Many of us check all the burners on the stove before leaving the house, or feel the need to always carry hand sanitizer. So I figured I was just like everyone else. Besides, no one really told me otherwise.

And maybe I was like everyone else; that is until my obsessive tendencies began to take over my life. I would avoid using the stove at times, needed to ask others to lock the front door for me, spent many sleepless nights worrying about mundane things like my work computer, a light switch I turned on at the office, or whether the kettle may sporadically catch on fire.

At times, I had difficulty breathing, struggled with panic attacks, and became so ‘worked up’ that I needed hours to calm down. As much as it pained me to admit it, I was no longer like everyone else. It was no longer normal and I needed help.

But, like so many others, my decision to seek professional help was a painstaking one.

When someone is diagnosed with cancer, we describe them as ‘sick’ or ‘ill’, and approach them with empathy. We would categorize a broken leg as an ‘injury’, and offer to lend a helping hand. We donate, run, wear clothing, grow and cut our hair on behalf of many deserving physical illnesses.

What do we do for those struggling with mental illness?

We describe them as crazy, disturbed, deranged, insane, lunatics, ‘nuts’, troubled… the list goes on. In fact, a 2007 study has suggested that there are 250 labels utilized to negatively characterize mental illness. We have 250 ways to ridicule, fear, delegitimize, shame, and blame those diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anxiety, many other diagnosable mental illnesses, and an array of mental health concerns.

We stigmatize mental illness, and this very stigmatization causes those who struggle with mental health concerns to withdraw, disassociate, and isolate from others; all the while caught within an invisible struggle to regain ‘health’. The backlash so often associated with mental illness does not go unnoticed; many live in fear and choose instead to keep their challenges with mental illness secret from family, friends, and helping professionals. A worrisome 60% of us with mental illness may not seek out treatment resulting from concealment, lack of available treatment, or inability to pay for adequate intervention. Mental illness stigmatization is, according to the World Health Organization, “the single most important barrier to overcome in the community”.

Imagine the outcry if the majority of those diagnosed with cancer were abstaining from treatment. Rarely a word is spoken when the illness is easily concealed.

The horror of the Newtown tragedy brought to light the very stigmatization that parallels mental illness. Media outlets grappled to find any history of mental illness of those involved, and began jumping to conclusions once a ‘mental health related motive’ was rumored.  Articles were written about the ‘obvious’ state of the perpetrator, and hazardous generalizations were made between experiences when little accurate information was ever provided.

We are all looking for something to blame in order to make sense of our collective anger, sadness, and terror. However, by throwing blame in the wrong direction we cause further unintentional widespread harm.

I waited to write this blog until some of the media-hype had dissipated. The reason for doing so is because by speculating on causes drawn from the shooter’s personal history we do little to de-stigmatize mental illness or to really come to terms with the tragedy. The reality is that we, the 1 in 4 Americans and 1 in 5 Canadians who struggle with a ‘diagnosable’ mental illness, are no more capable of violence than those lacking a mental illness. In fact, we are 2.5 to 4 times more likely to be victims of violence. This is what the media needs to start reporting, not sensationalizing difference, but embracing it so that we can become a more compassionate and tolerant society.

Perhaps the perpetrator behind the Newtown tragedy did struggle with a mental illness. Maybe he was seeking psychological support, or was isolated. But perhaps he did not. The fact is we may never know. But what we do know is that to insinuate that me, or you, or someone you may know and love is to be feared, shunned, and discriminated against merely because they are battling a mental illness is dangerous. By doing so we are further perpetuating the very stigma that keeps so many from seeking help and support, choosing instead to battle significant health concerns on their own. To continue such negative speak will harm countless others and will do little to ‘add some good’ into an impossibly sad situation.

The people of Newtown have witnessed unspeakable horror and profound loss. If (and more than likely when) the children, parents, educators, first responders, health professionals, funeral assistants, and the entire community seek mental health assistance will we call them crazy? Disturbed? Troubled? Will we shame them for being weak, and blame them for their struggles?

No, we’ll call them human. We’ll tell them it’s ok to ask for help. We’ll encourage them to talk, to cry, to be angry, and to work through every other emotion that may decide to surface. We’ll support them throughout their process and hope that, though they may never come to a resolution about what happened, they will be able to position themselves within a narrative that they understand, and one that allows some ‘peace’.

And so we should do for the millions of us through North American who struggle with mental illness what we already do for those suffering from cancer, or diseases like it. As a collective, we need to call for mental health reform to ensure everyone can access affordable and adequate professional support, and improved mental health literacy to create new found awareness about what mental health is, and how we can best support others. Mental illness does not discriminate, so neither should we.

In the wise words of President Clinton, “mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of, but stigma and bias shame us all”. When I sought out help I understood that I would be stigmatized, however I was lucky enough to have the supports in place that made that stigma less palpable. In 2013, let us all work to combat the stigmatization of, and lack of attention paid to, mental illness because at the end of the day health is health, whether its physical or mental, concealed or visible.

Photo credit: davebarger via photopin cc

“I am here to fight against feminism. That is why I am here. You’re all a bunch of feminists, and I hate feminists.”

Those were the words that 25 year old Marc Lépine proclaimed as he walked into a classroom at École Polytechnique (an engineering school at the Université de Montréal) on December 6th, 1989, armed with a semi-automatic gun that he had hidden in a garbage bag.

He ordered the 60 male and female students to separate by gender, forcing the men by gunpoint to leave the classroom. Only nine students remained, all female, all helplessly huddled together.

One of the nine women, Nathalie Provost, an engineering student, replied “we’re not feminist.”  Bravely, she attempted to reason with Lépine, trying desperately to save herself and her fellow colleagues. We’re “just women studying engineering”, she replied, “not necessarily feminists ready to march on the streets to shout we are against men”.

Lépine shot all nine women anyway, six dying where they stood. He continued his rampage against women as he walked through the college halls, killing an additional 5 women and injuring several others before turning the gun on himself.

December 6th is now the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women. It is a day to remember the victims of the now coined ‘Montreal Massacre,’ the mere 20 minutes that lead to the murder of 14 young Canadians, 14 aspiring engineers, 14 women:

Geneviève Bergeron, 21

Hélene Colgan, 23

Nathalie Croteau, 23

Barbara Daigneault, 22

Anne-Marie Edwards, 21

Maud Haviernick, 29

Barbara Klucznik, 31

Maryse Leclair, 23

Annie St. Arneault, 23

Michèle Richard, 21

Maryse Laganière, 25

Anne-Marie Lemay, 22

Sonia Pelletier, 28

Annie Turcotte, 21

But even more importantly, December 6th has become a day to support all those who have been victimized through gender-focused violence by heightening awareness and calling for immediate unified action against this national epidemic.

Lépine chose to unleash his resentment on these female college students, but had hoped to brutalize a catalog of successful women, including a politician, Quebec’s first female firefighter, and Montreal-based journalist Francine Pelletier (she was #19 on his list). He chose to punish women for doing what they love, and being good at it.

Lépine may have murdered 14, but through them he took aim at all of us.

Perhaps he thought it was our fault that he had been twice rejected from entrance into the college. Perhaps he thought the women’s movement in its entirety, our battle for gender equality, had done him a disservice. Perhaps, as Francine Pelletier believes, Lépine felt it was our price to pay for crossing traditional vocational boundaries, taking on a ‘man’s’ job and succeeding at it.

Yet, this is not to say that Marc Lépine represents men; far from it, and without question, most men view the events of December 6th, 1989 as horrific, unjust, barbaric and, more than anything else, discriminatory. The majority of men are not Marc Lépine.

Some have argued that life has improved for Canadian women since 1989. We should, according to one author, stop utilizing December 6^th as “an annual excuse for fevered breast-beating over the moral failings of society and the persistent inequality of women.”  Apparently, we Canadians should “get a grip and move on.”

Speaking for myself, I’d really love to ‘move on,’ I would like nothing more than to say that violence against women has all but vanished, and that Canada has become a nation that basks in gender equality. I would be elated, truly I would.

But I can’t say that. Sure, we’ve made improvements, but there is still much to be done, particularly in light of the following facts:

• A woman is killed by an intimate partner every six days.
• Each year half a million Canadian women have reported an incident of sexual assault. It has been suggested that this accounts for only 10% of actual sexual assaults in the country, annually.
• New Brunswick, the province that I currently call home, has the worst rates of sexual assault in the country. Fredericton, New Brunswick, the city with the third highest rates (and where I reside), has, in response, considered constructing female-only parking spots closer to doorways and lit entrances.
• Nearly 600 Aboriginal women have gone missing or have been murdered as of 2010, causing the United Nations and Amnesty International to call for governmental action.

And is it any wonder, with sites like this one, that the violence goes on?

As time goes on, 23 years to be exact, many seem to have forgotten the importance of today. I’ve done my best to attend a memorial each year, regrettably missing one or two along the way. However, I have noted a terrifying trend: the attendance seems to be less each year. Also, I have noted a shocking realization as I conducted research for this article. It was the realization of just how many non-Canadians were oblivious of the events of December 6^th, 1989; comments on a 2009 Jezebel article reflected this lack of international awareness.

Though those fourteen women were murdered over twenty years ago, we still struggle to ‘get a grip’ on changing the mentality that perpetuates similar violence. We can do that by coming together as a collective, men and women, all the while recognizing that it’s not ‘about us versus them’; we’re not enemies that need to be destroyed. Rather, we’re partners in this incredible project called life.

But perhaps Nathalie Provost says it best. Nathalie survived the shootings and was interviewed on the 20^th anniversary in 2009. She did not see herself as a feminist that fateful day in 1989, but over the years, her opinion has changed: “I used to see feminism as a conflict between men and women, but it’s not that for me now…it’s making sure women have an equal chance.”

Days like December 6^th remind us of that.

Photocredit MyName via the Wikimedia Commons.

I was born on April 20th, 1984. On June 5th, nearly two months after being placed on an adoption list in Montreal, I met my parents and became Kathleen.

I can’t be sure what occurred during the two month gap between my birth and the introduction to my family; perhaps it’s an ‘adoptive limbo’, a space in time full of unknowns and solitude. Regardless, I’m thankful I was far too young to remember it. However, what I do know is that April 20th and June 5th have become equally important dates; in fact, I call them my two birthdays – the day I made my grand appearance into the world as we know it, and the day I became part of someone else’s world.

November is National Adoption Month, with the 17th hailed as National Adoption Day. While for many this designation may seem like an attempt to grant yet another cause calendar recognition, for others, like me, it’s significant. At a time when abortion, although deservingly so, has received center focus, it’s time to shed light on an equally important choice – to raise awareness, debunk longstanding myths, highlight outstanding needs, and give a deserving voice to those whose lives were changed by adoption.

And there are a lot of voices to be heard; the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute suggests that 1.5 million, or 2% of American children have been adopted. This results in nearly 60% of us having some connection with adoption, be it through our own adoption, by becoming an adoptive parent, knowing someone who has been adopted, or having forfeited our parental rights for adoption.

As a result of our common bond, we, as a society, also see adoption as a beneficial process, with nearly 80% of us recognizing the need to connect available children with eager parents. Yet, there still remains a lack of understanding about adoption, and far too many misconceptions about the process. In honour of National Adoption Day, it is my hope to help debunk myths about adoption with an aim to promote awareness and inspire others to become part of a very special community to which I am proud to belong.

Truth One: Adoption takes on many forms

Adoption has many sides, in spite of the stereotypical image of ‘Orphan Annie’ that society would have us believe. Sure, many children are adopted from foster care, but others are adopted through private agencies, within the same family (referred to as kinship adoption), by a stepparent, or internationally.

Truth Two: Hundreds of thousands of children of varying ages and geographical location are desperate for a family

As of 2011, over 100,000 children in the United States alone are waiting to be adopted into loving homes. Many children in foster care are older, with an average entrance age of 8 and remain in care, on average, for 2 years. At home, adoption rates have declined over the past several decades but as a large database regarding foster care and adoption throughout Canada and the US is not available, an exact understanding of the domestic adoption need is limited.

Children in the developing world face an even more uncertain future; rates of international adoptions have decreased by nearly 60%, resulting from heightened inter-country adoption restrictions in response to corrupt practices, including bribery and the buying and selling of children. As a result, some countries like Romania have chosen to close their borders to North American and European families.

Truth three: There are large barriers to adoption

Far too many children experience the ‘adoptive limbo’, and eager adoptive parents are forced to wait patiently for their chance to begin their family. The Adoption Council of Canada suggests that adoption, depending on the method, can take anywhere from just under a year to nearly a decade. I was unbelievably fortunate as my adoption occurred soon after I was born, but my parents spent nearly 5 years on waiting lists until it was their turn. In actuality, they were given just 5 days notice prior to meeting me for the first time.

Adoption also comes with a cost; legal international adoptions can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and private domestic adoptions are nearly as expensive. However, adoptions out of foster care are much more affordable and could be faster if potential parents are willing to adopt an older child.

Truth Four: Adoption is an option for anyone

While we still face conflict with international adoption policies, domestic adoption has seen significant improvement; in Canada, single men and women as well as same-sex couples can freely adopt and, although determined on a state-by-state basis, the US is slowly but surely getting there. Additionally, both Canada and the US have adoption tax credits available to help alleviate monetary strain, as well as the option to take parental leave upon the arrival of their child. There is also the provision of readiness training and post-adoption programs to assist the transition process. Great organizations, some of which I have listed at the end of this blog, are also available to help parents and children (pre and post adoption) develop strong, long-lasting relationships.

Truth Five: Children put up for adoption do not necessarily have pre-existing, and will not necessarily develop behavioural, psychological, or biological concerns

I was once told by a fellow student in high school that she would never consider placing her newborn child up for adoption for fear of them becoming “messed up”. I’ve also been asked “what was wrong with me” and upon revealing my adoptive past, am often faced with a barrage of questions that indicated that somehow I am at fault. Sadly, such thoughts persist.

Sure, being adopted is far from easy. Many adoptive children, such as myself, may struggle and perhaps well into their adult years. Others may encounter feelings of abandonment, resentment, and isolation. Many who lack an understanding about the reasons for their adoption may feel unloved or ‘not good enough’, assuming, like others do, that there must be something wrong with them in order to be ‘given away’. Children who have been in foster care for extended periods of time have a heightened risk of developing personal issues, resulting from a lack of perceived security and stability. Such struggles may be challenging to overcome, but they can be battled in much the same way as all of us, adopted or not, battle our daily demons. The majority of adoptive children will grow into successful, healthy adults. Gerald Ford, Nancy Reagan, Steve Jobs, Jesse Jackson, Edgar Allen Poe, Dave Thomas (founder of Wendy’s), Faith Hill, Aristotle, and even Superman have, if that’s any indication.

Truth Six: Adopting a child makes them your ‘own’

The results of a 1997 study outline a devastating reality: the majority of us see adoption as ‘not as good’ as having your ‘own’ biological child. Furthermore, 1 in 5 believe adopted children were ‘less loved’ by their birthmothers, and 1 in 4 assume it is harder for adoptive parents to love adopted children in the same way as biological children.

This is perhaps for me, and I’m sure for many others, the most painful societal belief – a disconnect that tells us that biology determines an ability to parent. Far too often I am asked if I know my ‘real’ family, as if to assume that those who dedicated 28 years raising me are in some way ‘fake’.

Yes, adoptive parents miss the gestational period, and they may not understand the joy of birth following a long pregnancy. Yet, I would challenge anyone to ask an adoptive parent how they felt the first time they laid eyes on their child. The feeling, from what I’ve heard, couldn’t be more similar and perhaps even more profound.

However, as right as she usually is, perhaps my mom explains this best. In a letter my mom wrote to me that was published in my hometown’s newspaper for a special Mother’s Day edition, she so poignantly states: “biologically, you do not share our DNA, but you do share our unconditional love”. Arguably, it takes a special kind of person to adopt a child; it requires patience, understanding, committment, and a whole lot of love – what is required of any parent, and perhaps much more. Yet, in the end, the joy felt from giving a deserving child, your OWN child, a home, far outweighs any of the negative.

In the end, it’s not where you come from that matters, but the love that is shared that defines a family. Biology, in my opinion, is far too overrated.

For great adoption resources, please check out the following organizations:

National Adoption Day

The National Council for Adoption

The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption (US)

The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption (Canada)

The Adoption Council of Canada

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute

AdoptUsKids

The National Adoption Center

Image credit audi_insperation via the Creative Commons License.

Dear Lady Gaga,

Let me start off my prefacing this open letter. I’m not writing this in the hopes of pulling at proverbial heartstrings nor am I hoping to gain unwanted attention. I’m writing this to thank you.

Over the past few weeks you have been maliciously attacked because of your appearance. To say this is unjust would be an understatement, but being in the public eye each and every day, you know this more than anyone else.

What you do need to know is that many of us, women, men, children, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, or other discerning factors, understand your pain. We are all body snarled – by a magainze at a check-out of a grocery store, through diet ads in fashion magazines, or even when on a scale beside unflattering mirrors at the gym. Perhaps we can’t understand the hurt caused by tabloid magazines, but we can relate to the struggle. As Michelle at the Huffington Post so poignantly states, “the body mass index continues to be the gold standard measurements of success,” regardless of what other triumphs we may have achieved. We are all alike, in that regard.

We are all alike because 80% of us struggle with concerns about weight, and thus a skewed perception of ourselves. The multi-billion dollar dieting industry profits because of our collective self-loathing over our lack of perfection. Worse still, body dissatisfaction heightens our risk for developing more severe health issues; well over 10 million of us, our friends, family members, and loved ones battle an eating disorder. They are all-encompassing and debilitating illnesses, regardless of how they manifest. Sadly, eating disorders are far too often negatively perceived; deemed as blameworthy, self-inflicted, and attention-seeking, many of us struggle in secrecy and unassisted.

Too many of us lack self love of ourselves and our bodies. What’s worse – we do so feeling as though no one understands our worries, our fears, our lack of compassion. The war against body dissatisfaction and eating disorders can be won, but it’s an uphill battle; care is limited and funding is lacking. So many of us lack a voice; the wall of stigma must be shattered.

In protest, you launched the Body Revolution to provide Little Monsters everywhere the opportunity to post photos and stories, battling against unrealistic societal norms – and the 80% sorely need it. You have provided an outlet for self expression, a positive gathering ground for those with like concerns. Most importantly, we have a role model. Sure, we may not always want to wear a meat dress to our functions – but you’ve given so many a voice, so I’ll overlook the steaks.

Fellow bloggers and even professionals in the field see this as a wonderful thing. Sure, there is some backlash; questions have been raised as to whether such a movement promotes physical beauty over the internal and, if so, should it be regarded as a ‘revolution.’  Imagine if society could see through skin and quantify our internal selves first – wouldn’t that be incredible?

However, it’s not realistic – not right now, anyway.  Besides, we all want, as Maya at Feministing explains, “to feel attractive; it’s impossible to live in this world and resist that.”  There is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling beautiful. So, for right now, we can follow in your footsteps and begin to take swing at societal conventions. We can refuse to accept that ‘flaws’ are innately ugly. Moving forward, I see your work as trying to accommodate everyone’s own individual beauty; your message is that we all need some love, and I can support that. That, to me, is revolutionary.

This is my hope for you: take care of yourself. Just like the 80%, you are human. I truly hope you choose not to ‘diet,’ yet these choices are so personal that I cannot, at the end of the day, pass judgment. But I hope that you make good choices for you, and no one else. You can’t take care of your Little Monsters without being healthy yourself.

The ability to think critically, uncover truths, combat injustices, and give voice to stigmatized problems can make an incredible difference. You have pointed us in this direction. So, thank you. Keep fighting for your own health and advocating for the silenced millions.

- Kathleen

For more information about eating disorders, visit:

The National Eating Disorder Association – in the United States

The National Eating Disorder Information Centre – in Canada

Beating Eating Disorders – in the United Kingdom

Photo Credit petercruise via the Creative Commons License.

Ask yourself: what do you want for your life? The most common answer? To strive to live a life that brings the greatest joy; that is, the goal of being happy. The good news for your virtuous endeavor? The pursuit of life happiness is your basic and inalienable right. Thanks to the know-how of the American Founding Fathers, we are all entitled to live the life we choose, and to do so freely and happily. This seems like a simple task – to live a fulfilling life liberally and do so, for the most part, smiling. While two out of the three Constitutional tenets seem fairly straight forward, what about the last – the pursuit of happiness? Do any of us really understand what it means to be happy?

Thankfully, science is helping to unmask the mystery. Biological factors, including genetics, do play a role in the presentation of happiness; a recent documentary simply entitled “Happy” has suggested that approximately half of happiness is biological factored. For example, a new study at the University of Florida identified a gene that is linked to increased levels of happiness in women.

Research by Dr. Edward Diener, one of the leading experts in the field referred to as “positive psychology”, has identified that happiness is a comprehensive societal phenomena, based on a number of factors. Among the most imporant criteria for happiness is the interpersonal connection with others, and a sense of community. Work by psychologist Dr. Martin Seligman has identified three important components of happiness: engagement, or involvement with others and tasks; meaning, or the superior purpose we serve; and pleasure. Surprisingly, engagement and meaning have a much stronger bearing on overall happiness than pleasure.

What does this mean? After genetics, life circumstances, including income, education, social and marital status, place of origin, past experiences, health, and gender account for a mere 10% of our total happiness. The remainder of our happiness, a whole 40%, is the result of intentional activities, defined as a wide range of variable behavioural, cognitive, and motivational acts we choose to engage in each and everyday. What this suggests is that after we account for basic life needs, much of our happiness is characterized intrinsically and often achieved in connection with others. Put simply, money really doesn’t buy happiness.

Yet, research has also suggested that women are becoming increasingly unhappy over time. A 2009 study by Stevenson and Wolfers suggested that women’s subjective happiness has declined over the past 35 years, despite large objective gains resulting from the women’s movement. Their findings remain consistent regardless of income, marital status, race, and in relation to other industrialized nations. Most startling, the subjective happiness of women, which was higher in the 1970′s, had slipped below that of men.

Thinking rationally, there are a number of reasonable explanations for this finding. Jillian Hewitt of Feministe wonders whether women in the 1970′s measured their overall happiness unaware of what they were missing resulting from gender inequality. Perhaps, as Katha Pollitt of the Nation suggests, we “are simply becoming a bit more honest” and able to communicate our discontent more freely. Conceivably, women are more aware of the misogyny that constantly surrounds us; the plight of social media makes it relatively impossible to escape the daily occurances of androcentrism (see recent ‘legitimate rape’ comments as an example). Or associatively, we are, as Elizabeth Schulte suggests, not unhappy but angry. Whether we are less happy or not, this is one study seeking an answer to a highly subjective and complex concept using a survey. One finding alone cannot speak to the reasons millions of women around the world feel the way they do; we need to take such results with a heaping grain of salt.

However, some have not, and have blamed feminism for the unhappiness of women worldwide. Ross Douthat of the New York Times notes that “all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness”, suggesting that women may prefer ‘low-risk societies’ and perhaps a ‘social stigma’ is necessary as the ever-rising rates of single mothers “threatens the interests and happiness of women”. Marcus Buckingham, proclaimed self-help guru and Huffington Post contributor conveniently suggests that women are struggling to lead a happy life even though we have countless “opportunities and achievements”. By the logic of these two authors, and countless others who have commented on the results of this investigation, the liberation of women and the women’s movement in general leads to unhappiness.

My logic sees this discussion very differently. Thomas Jefferson wrote that famous line of the Constitution purposefully. People are born and granted liberty, and provided the opportunity to pursue their own subjective happiness. Thus, freedom is a ‘prerequisite’ - in order to be happy we require our liberty.

This freedom from domination is the very essense of feminism.

The science of happiness tells us that much of our happiness is achieved by remaining engaged, interpersonally connected, and acting in intentional and meaningful ways. Feminism is that purposeful action that studies tell us is so important for our happiness – it provides the route to an extention of our community; we are connected in womanhood and a common desire for equality.

The very act of feminism is both meaningful and engaged. Those who say women are unhappy at the hands of feminism fail to realize that the reason why we continue the movement is because many of sisters are still suffering (see Soraya’s powerful article as an example of this). We become feminists because it scares us to think about being in a place where our freedom is compromised, or that anyone should have to suffer unneccessarily. We fight for other people’s rights because the opppression of one woman is the domination of all women. Feminism is the pathway to happiness, not just for me but for all peoples.

Feminism makes me happy because it provides me a greater purpose above my life circumstances, allows me to feel connected to a fearless community, but most importantly, because it gives me hope. This hope is not just for living a good life, but also hope that the women of Afghanistan, Syria, India, and all over the world can live good lives too.

I’ll keep fighting for that, and do it with a smile.

Image Credit jetheriot via the Creative Commons License. 

As a Canadian, I am often amazed at the level of mud-slinging involved in American politics. Sure, Canadian politicians employ their own brand of callous name-calling, but in comparison to our southern bi-partisan neighbours, they’re fairly amicable.

And yet, the uncouthness of American politics never ceases to amaze me. This time, Illinois Republican Congressman Joe Walsh is the star of the show.

In recent statements, Walsh insinuated that his Democrat opponent, Iraqi War veteran Tammy Duckworth, is not a ‘true hero’. Duckworth is a double amputee – having lost both of her legs in 2004 following a rocket propelled grenade attack on her helicopter. In an attempt to clarify his statements, Walsh went on to explain that in previous conversations with veterans, rarely have they openly discussed “the combat they’ve seen”, and insists that Duckworth revert from discussing her military past and begin talking about the “real issues” in the country. According to Walsh, it’s time to “move on”.

Anyone who knows of Joe Walsh is aware of his history of questionable comments, yet this newest rant is particularly awful. Yes, his continuous reference to Duckworth’s gender did not go amiss (in addition to an undertone of intimidation). Yet, this recent ramble goes much further than his usual absurdity. Walsh’s comments are irresponsible, and for reasons beyond his obvious slight at women. His remarks perpetuate the very stigmatization that is far too often associated with the prevalence of mental health issues plaguing the brave men and women who serve in the military. As a mental health practitioner and researcher, Walsh’s words hit much too close to home.

So, the problem is, Joe, I can’t ‘move on’. Not when the concern for our war heroes is so very real.

Walsh insists that a ‘true hero’ doesn’t speak of their experiences. The heartbreaking reality – many of our veterans do not talk about their lived experiences and subsequent difficulties. Sadly, it is this very lack of dialogue that has played a role in the surge of post-war mental health related issues and heightened prevalence of suicide that we see today. As a whole, mental health stigmatization if a societal concern but is worsened in the military. Why the fear of disclosure? Some may feel revelation will negatively impact their career, while others may feel ashamed or isolated as a result of their concealed stuggles. Sadly, they are in no way alone in their strife; the sky-rocketing rates of mental illness among our war heroes is a frightening concern. Over the past year, rates of suicide have peaked to the highest level since the onset of the war; since the beginning of 2012, there has been nearly one suicide each day. Although not all those who serve, or who will serve in future conflict, will develop mental health issues many do, and do so in silence.

I am by no means suggesting that Duckworth struggles with mental illness as a result of her service, and perhaps Duckworth is utilizing her military service as part of her election campaign more so than others. I am also not suggesting that Walsh was explicitly implying that service men and women should avoid seeking assistance. Nevertheless we are fighting a war on the home front now, and comments that may deter those from revealing their struggles and seeking help will only make the battle worse.

So, Joe, have some respect – not because she’s a woman, not because she has a physical disability, and not even because she’s a veteran. Instead, respect her as you would the thousands of American veterans who battle physical and mental challenges each and every day. Walsh, inferring ‘true heroes’ don’t talk about their experiences, irresponsibly contributes to stigma. A hero is someone who stands up for what is just, and Tammy Duckworth is just the type of person who advocates for those who may not be advocating for themselves. A hero in my books, even North of the border.

For those wanting more information on anti-stigmatization and help seeking in the U.S. Military, visit realwarriors.net.

Photo credit The U.S. Army via the Creative Commons License.