There are many words I consider part of my identity, including feminist. It is a very loaded term. Since I was a young girl I knew that I was all for equal rights, but I shied away from being called a feminist, as many girls do, because of the stereotypes associated with the word. In this post I'm going to write about being called a feminist, denying you're a feminist, and introduce the website Not Feminist, eh?
Only in university did I embrace the term feminism (with its multiple and fluid definitions). In a Media and Feminist Studies course we started the semester with a whirlwind reading of Where the Girls Are: Growing up Female with the Mass Media by Susan Douglas. The whole book is a great read and especially relevant to anyone who was a girl in Canada or the US anytime in the second half of the 20th century.
Chapter 12, titled "I’m not a Feminist, but…", resonated with me because only a couple of years before reading this I was definitely making statements about equality that began with that expression. The chapter discusses why women in younger generations have tended to distance themselves from the term. Often, women don't understand its meaning or don't want to be labelled as a feminist because of the negative connotations and the stereotypes associated with feminism. In class we addressed media representations of feminism as everything from dangerous to dead, and the myths that feminism is no longer needed, either because of its failure or because of its success.
Post-feminist theories help us understand how feminism is perceived in the Global North. In her book Gender and the Media, Rosalind Gill writes:
I want to argue that postfeminism [sic] is best understood not as an epistemological perspective, nor as a historical shift, and not (simply) as a backlash, in which its meanings are pre-specified. Rather, postfeminism should be conceived of as a sensibility, and postfeminist media culture should be our critical object the phenomenon which analysts must inquire into and interrogate. This approach does not require a static notion of authentic feminism as a comparison point, but instead is informed by postmodernist and constructionist perspectives and seeks to examine what is distinctive about contemporary articulations of gender in the media (254-255)
Post-feminism should be conceived as a sensibility… Today’s media culture has a distinctive postfeminist sensibility organized around choice, empowerment, self-surveillance, and sexual difference, and articulated in an ironic and knowing register in which feminism is simultaneously taken for granted and repudiated (271).
Post-feminism positively draws on and invokes feminism as that which can be taken into account, to suggest that equality is achieved, in order to install a whole repertoire of new meanings which emphasize that it is no longer needed, it is a spent force (215).
A couple of weeks ago I came across the website www.notracistbut.com, a recent project that makes racism more visible and calls into question whether we live in a post-racial society. www.whitewhine.com, another site with a somewhat problematic name, but similar purpose, calls attention to so-called “first world problems” – essentially problems that aren’t serious and generally only afflict affluent people in the Global North.
I read about the source of Not Racist, But… content and discovered OpenBook. Curious, I typed “feminism,” “feminists,” and “not feminist but” into the search engine, and Not Feminist, eh? was born.
The website highlights status updates that use “I’m not a feminist, but” to express a feminist perspective while avoiding the feminist label. It also compiles statements that express negative sentiments towards feminism, blame feminists for specific or general problems in the world, or perpetuate stereotypes about feminists.
Stereotypes about feminists are problematic because they erase the differences of a diverse group of women. Furthermore, it's problematic to view all of these stereotypes as negative – is being masculine, pro-choice, or not shaving your legs a bad thing? No, of course not. So let's just keep that in mind.
There is a joke about feminists changing light bulbs that apparently went viral recently. The punch line varies but mostly claims that feminists “can’t change anything.”
This "answer" intrigues me because it hints that feminism is indeed relevant and needed, but that there is resistance to equality and change, and therefore attempts to ridicule feminists for (and discourage them from) trying to change the status quo. Post-feminism, anyone?
This is what one might conclude based on most representations in Western media that involve any combination of men, women, and meat. Men typically exhibit manliness through the consumption of meat, women and displays of physical strength. Women are instructed to make themselves appealing and available for consumption, whether visually or physically. Meat is often associated with wealth and violence; one must have more resources to purchase a steak instead of beans, and someone must kill an animal for that steak to end up on a plate. The images below offer some examples:
Text at bottom reads:
RED MEAT: We were meant to eat it
Herbivores/Vegetarians/Vegans, or simply those who restrict their meat consumption, are often trivialized and mocked as hippies or tree-huggers, presented as weak (regardless of gender), or ignored and merely tolerated. I admit, acceptance of vegetarianism as a reality in Canadian and American society has increased, with vegetarian dishes being offered on wedding RSVP cards and meatless food (in addition to side salads) now being widely served in restaurants.
Another aspect of vegetarianism's portrayal is the perceived gender of food and its accompanying stereotypes about strength and weakness. This might seem silly. But if we assign these foods as either feminine or masculine, I'm sure that most people (at least most people I know) will arrive at the same conclusions.
Steak | Bacon | Beer | Cheeseburger |
Corn on the Cob | Whiskey
Consider where you got these ideas: Why did you feel that certain foods were more masculine or feminine? (Let me know in the comments!)
Commercials, such as this one from the Burger King 'I Am Man' ad campaign, definitely reinforce gender stereotypes and segregate men's food (i.e. burgers) from "chick food" (i.e. quiche and tofu). Pay attention to the lyrics of the song, which has been dubbed a "Manthem" (anthem for men, since men have been so oppressed and need to unite and rebel, get it?):
Note the use of multiple second wave feminist movement symbols: burning undergarments, banners being unfurled over buildings, marching in the streets, and the parodying of Helen Reddy's song I Am Woman.
Manthem Lyrics
I am man, hear me roar/ In numbers too big to ignore/ And I’m way too hungry to settle for chick food!/ ‘Cause my stomach’s starting to growl,/And I’m going on the prowl,/For a Texas Double Whopper!/ “Man that’s good!”/
Oh, yes, I’m a guy!/I’ll admit I’ve been fed quiche!/Wave tofu bye-bye!/Now it’s for Whopper beef I reach./ I will eat this meat/(Eat this meat)/‘Till my innie turns into an outie!/
I am starved!/ I am incorrigible!/ And I need to scarf a burger beef bacon jalapeno good thing down! (Yeah!)/ I am hungry!/ (I am hungry)/ I am incorrigible!/ I AM MAN!
U.S. published men's magazine Esquire has a food blog titled "Eat Like A Man," where the authors impart wisdom and reinforce the gender of certain food. A recent post declared that U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates eats like a man because he loves eating beef. A recent post about a new dessert began:
I know what you think of the frozen-desserts aisle: That's a place for women and children, not men. That there's a reason you never saw Steve McQueen or John Wayne eating frozen desserts, and it's because it's not possible for a man to look cool while eating a Popsicle or scooping melting ice cream off a cone.
That all may be true, and probably is.
Note: Based on her name, Elizabeth Gunnar, author of these (and many other posts), is a woman.
Advertising certainly plays a role in the food preferences of some people. Culture, or perhaps different/lack of advertising, help shape food preferences outside of North America. In a post at Salon.com, Riddhi Shah presents studies showing that the gender of food may be a regional thing, and she reflects on the eating habits in her household:
But beyond the borders of the United States, the story is different. The same study found that in Spain, men and women craved chocolate equally — about 25 percent, while in Egypt, neither sex craved chocolate, with both sexes showing a high preference for salty foods...
And when I took my work home, I realized that my husband and I — both of us grew up in India — have eating habits that fly in the face of all these studies. My husband has an insatiable sweet tooth, can't go to bed without his nightly Mars bar, and diligently spends hours in the fruit aisle. I, on the other hand, am a complete dairy fiend, love my protein, adore a good whisky, and wouldn't notice if Ben & Jerry's stopped producing Cherry Garcia tomorrow...
A Japanese friend recently told me about new language being used to describe the dating habits of Japanese people. Apparently, people in Japan are noticing a decline in nikushoku men and a corresponding rise in soshoku men.
NIKUSHOKU | SOSHOKU
Meat-eating/carnivore | Grass-eating/herbivore
Aggressive toward women, love, and sex | Not aggressive toward women, love, or sex
Prefer beer to cocktails | Prefer cocktails to beer
Prefer going out | Prefer being at home
Not fashion conscious | Fashion conscious
Not eco-conscious | Eco-conscious
Eat, drink, weigh as much as other men | Eat, drink, and weigh less than other men
Pair the idea of meat-eating and grass-eating people with other connotations that meat carries and we get some sexist results. Meat-eating men are supposed to eat meat/women (consuming women; women as meat).
Text reads: Skin good enough to eat
Meat-eating women are supposed to eat meat (male genitalia are often associated with meat; oral sex reference). And then grass-eating people are either meat or alone.
In Japan, interesting social changes are resulting in independent women who don't feel that they need men. And many Japanese men are backing away from their traditional role as aggressor/pursuer in relationships with women. With declining birth rates and marriages, those with an interest in perpetuating the perceived homogeneous Japanese nation are concerned. However, some women are taking on the more assertive role of finding a mate, which solves the problem of people being alone but complicates the traditional gender roles.
I am especially intrigued by the idea of nikushoku/carnivores and the implication that men are supposed to hunt women. The metaphor blatantly uses meat to symbolize women as something to be hunted, violently subdued against their will, and consumed. This analysis could be seen as an over-reaction. And understood in a vacuum, this could be the case. However, the carnivore/herbivore dichotomy exists in nature and this metaphor is being lived out by people in Japan (and elsewhere).
The idea of women being meat, which is available for consumption at the will of the consumer, is neither rare nor absurd. In addition to being treated like a piece of meat, a woman in North America can easily find people of her gender being portrayed as something to be consumed, such as beer and pieces of meat:
Text at bottom reads:
Break the dull beef habit
In some cases, celebrities actively participate in identifying themselves with meat or animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was outraged that Lady Gaga wore a meat dress, claiming it glamourized the murder of animals. It is interesting to contrast Lady Gaga and PETA's media representations: Lady Gaga claimed she was making a political statement and told Ellen DeGeneres "I am not a piece of meat." PETA represents sexual images of women as meat to promote vegetarianism, veganism, and animal rights.
Want to see more? Watch this Carol J. Adams slideshow!
And how did being treated like a piece of meat come to be a negative thing? Why does it mean being treated like you are worthless, disposable, inferior, and existing for the pleasure of someone else? Because that's how our society treats meat and, by extension, animals. And women and animals (or more broadly, nature) are often treated as inferior - not to mention people of colour, immigrants, people with disabilities, etc. This seems to me to be an extension of the complex web of inequalities that makes up society. But this also goes beyond human society and a new question stands out to me: why do we treat meat (and animals, and nature) as worthless, disposable, and inferior, and existing solely as a source of pleasure for someone else?
Carol J. Adams has a lot to say on the topic. Her book, The Sexual Politics of Meat, is on my to-read list and her website/blog have offered me lots of information in the meantime.
In her blog, Adams addresses Myths about Vegans, one of which is relevant to this topic, and worth quoting at length:
In 1990, I wrote a book called “The Sexual Politics of Meat” to dissect the idea that eating animal flesh makes someone strong and virile. The myth gained steam in the 1960s when anthropologists Desmond Morris and Robert Ardrey attributed the advancement of civilization to “man the hunter.” Today, cultural messages — from Burger King’s “I am Man” ad campaign to a Hummer commercial implying that a guy who buys tofu must “restore the balance” by buying a huge car — reinforce this myth. Even Michael Pollan, who details a boar hunt in “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” falls prey to the idea that men must fell prey: “Walking with a loaded rifle in an unfamiliar forest bristling with the signs of your prey is thrilling.” For vegans, this cartoonish hunter porn is ridiculous. What Pollan sees as a dilemma, we welcome as a decision.
But if real men once ate meat, it’s not so any longer. Olympic track legend (and New Jersey state Senate hopeful) Carl Lewis is a vegan. Former heavyweight boxing champ Mike Tyson is a vegan. Outkast’s Andre 3000 is a vegan. In Austin, a group of firefighters went vegan. But beyond the famous names who have embraced veganism for ethical or health reasons is the incontrovertible fact that eating meat doesn’t increase libido or fertility — and a vegan diet doesn’t diminish them.
In sum, the gender of certain foods, like chocolate and red meat, appears to be less universal than the association of women with meat and men as carnivores. I encourage you to start making more connections between vegetarianism/veganism/animal rights and feminism/sexism/gender stereotypes. Hopefully these ideas will provoke reflection on what you put in your mouth.
I'll leave you with one more thing to think about:
The rapid news cycle that we experience daily means that Dominique Strauss-Kahn (apparently aka DSK) and his alleged sexual attack on a hotel attendant in New York is no longer in the headlines. But the power that Strauss-Kahn represents and the enduring injustice of rape are still present in the world and are intrinsically connected.
DSK embodies power in a variety of ways: He is a white, heteronormative man from the Global North (France). He is university educated, and has held arguably (debatably?) respectable professional titles such as politician, economist and lawyer. Despite being part of the French Socialist Party, he has enjoyed the wealth and privileges that accompany these identities (presumably he was paid well by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)).
His identity carries so much social capital because of the complex relationships between entrenched hierarchies of race, class, gender, sex, sexual orientation, citizenship status, etc. And the power inequalities that favour men over women contribute to our global culture of rape. Many other power relations are implicated in this violent sexual interaction: he was European and she was African, he was rich and she was working for him in a service job.
At the international level, DSK has been a representative of the IMF, which has arguably used the power of the Global North to its advantage.
I just started reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," a biographical account of modern American empire by John Perkins. The comic above points to the figurative "raping and pillaging" of the world's resources by the elite of the world. In the Preface (I said I only just started...), Perkins describes some of the world's current predicaments, such as inequality, war and poverty. He offers an explanation for these issues:
Some would blame our current problems on an organized conspiracy. I wish it were so simple. Members of a conspiracy can be rooted out and brought to justice. This system, however, is fueled [sic] by something far more dangerous than conspiracy. It is driven not by a small band of men but by a concept that has become accepted as gospel: the idea that all economic growth benefits humankind and that the greater the growth, the more widespread the benefits. This belief also has a corollary: that those people who excel at stoking the fires of economic growth should be exalted and rewarded, while those born at the fringes are available for exploitation.
The concept is, of course, erroneous.
Exploitation, of course, takes many forms: economic, labour, and sexual, to name a few.
P.S. While editing this, I was listening to KPFA free speech radio (online) and unexpectedly heard a discussion about the DSK scandal. I encourage you to listen to their analysis. They also mention a change.org petition demanding justice in this case. You can access it here.
Women's Magazine: Memorial Day with Empathy May 30, 2011 at 1:00pm
It's not as simple as "have" and "have not." But "having it" to any degree automatically makes it harder to talk about in an insightful way. Without coming off like, well, a privileged dick.
I was born in, and live in Canada. My socioeconomic status is good. I'm university educated. I'm white. Cis gendered. Heterosexual. Able bodied.
What can somebody like me bring to the table when talking about privilege?
The comment led to outrage. In a concrete sense, it led to the creation of Slutwalk, a protest march to reclaim the word slut which has gone global.
So. The infamous statement by one misguided Toronto cop. I was outraged for a few reasons. Most significantly, I feel that it is absolutely appalling for a law enforcement officer to express this kind of victim blaming attitude. The way in which the message was delivered is harmful too: "we're not supposed to say this but..." i.e. "it's not publicly acceptable for us to express, but this is how cops really feel." This, in an already distrustful city. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume we can all agree here and now that this kind of statement is unacceptable (even though I know there are many people who do hold this opinion).
But it also shocked me for a reason very much tied into the privilege discussed above. Due to the qualities I list above, I have tended to assume that cops will leave me alone. Not just that, I have assumed that cops have my best interests in mind. That they will serve and protect me.
This is an obvious example of what it really means to be privileged. It's not that I've never been hassled by the police, because I have been. But I think it's safe to assume that the "degree of hassle" would have been greater if I were, say, black. Homeless. A young man. A prostitute. Or in some way visibly outside the norm.
I'm actually conflicted on whether I like the idea of Slutwalk or not. Something about it has never sat quite right with me, although I couldn't say what exactly until I read this excellent article. I agree that the ability to participate in a "Slutwalk" comes from a place of privilege, and that it doesn't necessarily do much to change the systemic problems created by, basically, slutshaming. On the other hand, I do think it's a really difficult problem to overcome because people who engage in slutshaming seem to me to have very deeply ingrained prejudices. And I think it's a worthy goal for women to reclaim and own their sexuality. (Also even though I agree with many of the above author's points, I do think using the words "white supremacy" in the title is more harmful than helpful. I idealistically believe feminists should go easy on each other even when we disagree with each other or think that others are acting in a way that is misguided. Maybe that's my privilege talking.)
Anyways. Privilege. Touchy topic. Most times when I read a piece by a privileged person talking about privilege, I feel that they get it wrong. And I'm not saying that to somehow claim that I've got it right, because I really don't know what I'm talking about.
But instead of opening up a slut-specific firestorm, I wish that this event would have led to a discussion of police prejudice and how it gets reinforced simply by virtue (vice?) of being a police officer.
Some police officers go into their careers holding certain prejudices. E.g., Black people commit more crimes. Natives abuse more substances. Girls dressed like sluts are more likely to be sexually assaulted.
Sidenote: I would like to put sluts in quotation marks for the entirety of this piece because I really do take issue with everything about that word. The idea that women who like sex deserve to be labelled by a derogatory term. The idea that such women dress a certain way. The idea that you can tell how much sex a woman wants by the way that she dresses. And of course, the idea that dressing a certain way is equivalent to consenting to sex.
Let's use the firestorm example. A police officer who believes sluts get raped, is more likely to find evidence to reinforce his belief. As the first level responders to crime, police witness, on a daily basis, the incidents the rest of us may only hear about, sporadically, perhaps diluted through whatever channel (e.g. news). Even demographics which are more likely to be victims of crime, probably don't witness the same amount as police do. If my hypothetical prejudiced police officer responds to 50 "sluts" and 50 "prudes" reporting sexual assault cases, he is nevertheless more likely to remember the evidence that confirms his beliefs, i.e., more likely to remember the "sluts." That's the nature of prejudice - it is self-perpetuating.
Secondly, there is actually a real reason that perpetrators might be more likely to prey on women dressed like "sluts" and it comes in two parts. One, rapists prey on vulnerable individuals. Individuals who won't be believed, or perhaps even heard. Two, if cops express the opinion that sluts deserve to get raped (or that they were asking for it, or that they brought it on themselves), they become a vulnerable population. See how that's a vicious cycle? It's not the manner of dress that's inherently problematic. It's the values that are attached to that manner of dress by people who hold power, such as police. And perpetrators.
Unfortunately for Toronto, the ball is getting dropped here. Now I know Slutwalk is about reclaiming the word slut and not explicitly f*ck the police (am I going to get arrested for writing that on the internet?). That's not my message either. I'm just pointing out the problem that stands out most obviously to me, and I don't think the Slutwalk movement is really addressing it.
As the members of the public who enforce the law, police officers should be trustworthy, accountable, and educated. I know that probably seems like a total pipe dream to people who are far more targeted by police than someone such as myself. And don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly hopeful myself. I'm not even sure what steps can be taken to progress towards that point. For one thing, can you even openly protest a police force without suffering some kind of serious consequences?
So for all that it's not perfect, I respect the organizers of Slutwalk for creating a movement that many people identified with and wanted to be a part of. Actual, physical mobilization always makes me happy to see. And as a final statement, I do think that anybody who uses the word slut in a derogatory term, really does not deserve to get laid ever again in their life. So if Slutwalk is making people of all genders stand up for that cause, even if it's a privileged one, it's nevertheless a step in the right direction.
The other day I ended up on an awesome website that examines media images through a sociological lens and I came across a post about "ever-fabulous" Sarah Haskins. Not only did this conjure up memories of watching her Current TV segment Target Women with my past roommates, it made me miss her humour.
I can admit that I am often angry when I see ridiculous media representations of women (and other marginalized groups). Sometimes I get frustrated because my fellow audience members don't disagree with the advertising messages as vehemently as I do, if at all. I have trouble taking advertisements lightly because I am aware of the concrete impacts they can have. Additionally, having taken a course on media and feminist studies, I have a tendency to approach commercials from a theoretical perspective and to connect them to the big picture of oppression.
Here are some examples of problematic advertisements. The first one features some colonial imagery while the others mostly deal portray sexism, specifically featuring white women. (If you have any questions about why I interpret these as problematic, let me know in the comments and I'll be happy to explain).
In sum, ads usually piss me off.
Which is why I find Target Women to be refreshing and Sarah Haskins to be inspiring. I (finally) created a Twitter account last month and was excited to find Haskins. She had a baby(!) and is still funny. Whether you've seen these before or not, I'm sure you'll enjoy them. I've included three episodes (about chocolate, hair and skin care) in this post. There are dozens more available here.
So, what do you think of Target Women, Sarah Haskins and/or all those advertisements you see everyday?
P.S. Click here to see some more advertisements that specifically relate to body image and women!
P.P.S. I'm also adding the favourite Target Women episodes of cg (fellow contributor to this blog):
When we first started discussing this blog, the subject of Canadian feminists came up several times. We had trouble naming even a handful of women that were seen as pioneers for women's rights, especially in recent times.
Having studied various feminist scholars, I am aware of the influence that American movements have on Canada. An inspiring PhD student instructed a class on Racism in Canada at my university and he was thoughtful about including Canadian authors in the syllabus. I sincerely appreciate the effort he put into that syllabus; it has been one of the main resources I use not only for critical theories on race, but for specifically Canadian thinkers.
I hope to use this blog to bring some of the awesome Canadian women to light and discuss their impact on feminism, politics and social justice in our country and abroad. One challenge we faced initially was finding Canadian women that specifically worked for a feminist or social justice cause rather than being "the first woman to ______." But those women are important to recognize, so I'll start this "series" by reviewing some pioneering women in Canada's history (with the much-needed assistance of Wikipedia). Do any of these "firsts" surprise you?
35 Notable Firsts for Canadian Women
Notes:
i. I recognize that feminism is a fluid term and my definition of feminism is shaped by my place in time. But, these women were pioneers and embodied some feminist qualities, like equality, all the same.
ii. Most Canadians descended from immigrant families; a lot of these women immigrated to Canada from another region (e.g. Europe, the US, or the Caribbean)
iii. Many people and many accomplishments were excluded because they didn't fit my narrow methodological requirement of being "first" but if you're curious you should learn more about famous Canadian women and let me know in the comments how many awesome women I missed!
1. Founder of first hospital in North America (1645) & co-founder of the City of Montreal (1642): Jeanne Mance
2. First female police officer in Canada (1800s, in Nova Scotia) : Rose Fortune
7. First licensed Canadian female pilot (1928) & first Canadian woman to parachute into water: Eileen Vollick
8. First Canadian woman to earn a degree in aeronautical engineering (1927) & first North American woman to earn a Master's in aeronautical engineering (1929) & first woman elected to corporate membership in the Engineering Institute of Canada (1938) & first woman ever to chair a UN Committee (1947, Stress Analysis Committee) & world's first female aircraft designer: Elsie MacGill, OC
9. First female Canadian Senator (1930) & First female delegate for Canada to the United Nation General Assembly (1949): The Honourable Cairine Wilson
10. Medical director of Canada's first birth control clinic (1932-1966): Dr. Elizabeth Bagshaw, CM
11. First woman promoted to rank of colonel in Canadian Army (1940-1944): Colonel Elizabeth Lawrie Smellie, RN, CBE
12. First female member of the Canadian Cabinet (1957) & First female Acting Prime Minister (for one day in 1958): The Right Honourable Ellen Fairclough, PC, CC, O.Ont
13. Canada's first woman ambassador (1958): Margaret Meagher, OC
Margaret Meagher (right) was Canadian Ambassador to Israel in 1959
via Wikipedia
14. First Canadian woman to jump over 6 metres in the long jump competition (1960s): Joan Hendry
15. First woman to seek leadership of a major political party (PC) in Canada (1967): Mary Walker-Sawka
16. First female publisher of children's books (1967) & First female mayor of Westmount, Quebec (1987-1991): May Cutler
17. First Canadian female solo singer to reach #1 on US charts and to earn a Gold record for "Snowbird" (1970) & First woman and first Canadian to win "Album of the Year" at the Country Music Association Awards (1984) & First woman to score a hole-in-one on the 108-yrd, par 3, 17th hole of the Kaluhyat Golf Club, NY (2003): Anne Murray, CC, ONS
18. First black Canadian woman elected to to Canadian provincial legislature (1972-1986 in BC) & First black woman to seek leadership of a major political party (NDP) in Canada (1975, second woman, after Mary Walker-Sawka): Rosemary Brown, PC, OC, OBC
19. First female Lieutenant Governor of Ontario & First female viceregal representative in Canadian history (1974-1980): The Honourable Pauline McGibbon, CC, O.Ont
20. First woman and first Canadian to compete in both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games in the same year (1976): Sue Holloway
21. First Aboriginal woman to earn a law degree in Canada (1976) & First woman appointed as Ontario Ombudsman (1989-1999) & First non-Parliamentarian appointed ex officio to a House of Commons committee: Roberta Jamieson, CM, LL.B, LL.D
22. First Governor General in Canada's history (1984-1990) & First Quebec woman cabinet minister & First female Speaker of the House & established first daycare for Parliament Hill: The Right Honourable Jeanne Sauvé, PC, CC, CMM, CD
23. First black person appointed to the Canadian Senate (1984): The Honourable Anne Cools
24. First female black mayor in North America (1984): Daurene Lewis, CM
30. First and only female Prime Minister of Canada (1993): The Right Honourable Kim Campbell, PC, CC, QC
31. First visible minority and first Chinese Canadian to be appointed Governor General (1999-2005): The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, PC, CC, CMM, COM, CD, FRSC(hon), FRAIC(hon), FRCPSC(hon)
32. First female Chief Justice of Canada (2000): The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, PC, CStJ, MA, LLB
33. First Jewish woman and youngest judge to sit on the Canadian Supreme Court Bench (2004) & youngest and first pregnant judge in Canadian history (1976): The Honourable Rosalie Abella, FRSC
34. First Muslim woman elected as a Member of Parliament (2004): Yasmin Ratansi
35. First black woman to serve as a viceroy and first person of Caribbean descent to be appointed Governor General (2005-2010): The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, CC, CMM, COM, CD, FRCPSC(hon)
Researching this topic helped me realize that there are so many women, from a variety of backgrounds, that have shaped Canadian history and there is so much I don't know about them.
Check back to find out more about the history of women in Canada and an introduction to more contemporary feminists in our nation.
We are Canadian feminist women who want to contribute to political, feminist and social justice discourse. We hope to offer our Canadian perspectives, especially since the voices of our neighbours to the south are often heard over ours. Regardless of your background, we hope you'll join the discussion!
