DMs are saturated with various practices of objectification and disregard for women and femmes in social and cultural contexts, and feed into damaging beauty ideals and stereotypes. In order to further understand this direct and pervasive messaging culture, it is important to understand the contextualization of women and femme bodies as subjects in modern society. Exposure to any form of mass media will prove that the bodies of women and femmes have been presented as an object of lust and desire, catering predominantly to, and for the consumption of, heterosexual cismen. Popular media, through images of hyper-sexualization, has thus effectively conceptualized the ‘ideal’ feminine self. This conceptualization results in a process of sexualization whereby young women and femmes — as young as teens and pre-teens — experience themselves as objectified, disempowered and de-autonomised. Moreover, the media has forcibly monopolized conventional beauty standards to emphasize the Eurocentric, thin, white, able bodies of women and femmes. Because of these ideals, instances of racialization and marginalization are rampant. Dominant, mass mediated images of Western and Eurocentric beauty furthers white supremacy and conventional white beauty, disabling the social mobility of women of colour and other, marginalized bodies that do not intersect with the ‘norm’. These boundaries of the physical self have construed Western society’s conventional understanding of femininity and create damaging effects on all women and femmes.

However, women and femme’s bodies, especially those largely misrepresented and marginalized in mass media, find empowerment within forms of self-identification and the cultivation of a persona online. Social networks allow women and femmes to assert their feminist politics through labour, eitheir emotional or material, and often monetary, towards a self-brand. This dynamic process of empowerment through, for example, the selfie and personal Instagram curation, often results in the re-sexualization and commodification of the bodies of women and femmes — this time at the consent and effort of the subject, the woman — whereby the subject engages Instagram to produce content as the empowered Other.

Instagram can be seen as an active agent in rejecting patriarchal, white supremacist dominance through its enabling of marginalized women and femmes to contribute labour in dictating their self-brand. Rather than being presented as passive objects of the male gaze, young women and femmes on Instagram frequently depict themselves as active, independent, and sexually empowered. These platforms exist as a mode of furthering autonomy and bodily agency within a larger construction of the online self. Some could argue that this is a moral obligation: women and femmes on Instagram take up online space through the subject position in response to the sexist societal norms and unattainable beauty ideals forced upon them by the patriarchal hegemony of society, and actively work against these impositions. Despite traditional criticisms of selfies as vain and narcissistic, it is through this medium that many women and femmes actually gain the agency to control this online medium to present their own powerful messages of identification. This concept of women and femme’s empowerment is furthered through the practice of immaterial labour— that being the affective and cognitive commodities produced by work that exist outside the traditional wage-based consideration of labor as a material-commodity-producing activity, as well as the activity of producing this new form of commodity, through the production of content by and for the self.

Unfortunately, through these ‘empowered’ platforms, women and femmes are still viewed as fetishized commodities in dominant patriarchal, heteronormative, consumer capitalism. Men take up a significant portion of online spaces explicitly to objectify women and femmes, in commenting on their bodies and appearance in selfies publicly and through the act of direct messaging. Conversely, the fear of being marginalized for being outside of patriarchal norms inhibits aesthetic expression for women and femmes. These objectifying discourses are part of a culture of male entitlement, dominance, and ownership. These messages engage women and femmes in a non-consensual sexual manner, which is often explicitly violent, emblematic of patriarchal culture in which men have been conditioned and socialized to appropriate and comment on women and femme’s bodies in order to fulfill their heterosexual fantasies and desires. Under patriarchy, men engage these bodies as a form of ownership, thus appropriating their bodies for their own fulfillment. Intrusive, predatory commentary and messages such as these exists as a form of online ‘cat-calling’ and harassment, and normalize rape culture and sexual violence enacted by heterosexual cis men upon women and femmes.

The instant accessibility and availability of women and femme’s bodies in a mediated online sphere becomes an opportunity for sexual harassment in the digital age – this concept of ownership and entitlement is both an archaic and autocratic one purporting to heteronormative interests of power and dominance. Furthermore, the position of heterosexual cis men on Instagram and through these forms of communication is that of the voyeur. Self-documentation, surveillance, and regulation, allows heterosexual cis men access to visual representations of the bodies of women and femmes. Within the process of direct messaging, this openness and availability emphasizes the position of the male as a voyeur: his own self-brand, and presence outside the role of voyeur, is largely invisible, while simultaneously taking up online space to objectify and hyper-sexualize women and femmes.

Thus surveillance happens through women and femmes self-policing, and through the intrusion of the male gaze. This creates a paradox within representational discourses in which women are taught to be themselves, empower themselves, and properly produce their labour within online spaces, while not resisting or rebelling against men’s reinforcement of ideal femininity through direct messaging. This paradox echoes gender norms which position men as dominant and women and femmes as the passive ‘other.’ Women and femmes of all identities, whether heterosexual, LGBT, or people of colour, are being fetishized as the other: however, each of these fetishizations takes place in different ways, concurrent with ideas of intersectionality in which varying forms of identity overlap to create unique lived experiences. For example, a cis, heterosexual woman would not be fetishized in the same manner as an openly queer woman or femme, nor would an able bodied woman or femme in the same ways a disabled woman or femme would, and more.

The consumption and fetishization of the marginalized body as the Other work together to create a pervasive, predatory DM culture. Consequently, men viewing the Instagrams of women and femmes tend to project stereotypical feminine qualities onto the bodies of these women and femmes in selfies and other online curatorial portrayals of the self. The men are, in this way, also socialised to hold specific conceptualizations of the ways women and femmes should respond the advances of men —specifically, passively and without resistance. This is what leads to the unabashedly violent and cruel reactions men have when women and femmes reject them.

A question thus presents itself, are these online mediated networks really able to exist within frames of empowerment, surveillance, and self-labour? Are they simply platforms for the subjugation of women and femmes by heterosexual cismen in a heteronormative context? I believe it is an interesting and condemnable paradox, whereby women and femmes are expected to successfully perform empowered and autonomous acts of self representation while simultaneously falling under the scrutiny and violence of dominance by the gaze of heterosexual cismen.

The post Get out of my DM’s appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Advocates for abortion rights are concerned after it was revealed that a new abortion drug, Mifegymiso, lauded as the gold-standard for abortion drugs, will most likely not be available through provincial health insurance when it enters Canada this year. Costing around $300, the drug will therefore be accessible only to people of a certain socioeconomic standing, and will likely be unavailable outside of major urban areas. The inaccessibility of abortion has been an ongoing issue, with Canadian abortion clinics still unavailable to many, and abortion rights coming under threat in other parts of the world.

Widespread accessibility of medical abortion, such as the Mifegymiso drug, is inaccessible to the majority of Canadian public. With a high cost and no coverage under provincial medical insurance, it requires certain economic means in order to gain access to it. This issue presents a severe dichotomy between the fundamental right to medical care, and the realities of inaccessibility within the Canadian healthcare system.

Historically speaking, denying women the right to abortion procedures has had consequences on their agency, economic status, mental health, and well being. A longitudinal study conducted in October 2014 by Adancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) at the University of California in San Francisco, investigated factors of women’s economic position, health, and relationship status after being denied abortions, revealing what happens to women who want abortions but are unable to get them due to restrictive regulations. The study concluded that when a woman is denied the right to abortion, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line.

Canada’s history of abortion rights has been one of both tumultuous struggle and progress. Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that has no criminal law restricting abortion. Pressure to liberalize Canada’s abortion law began in the 1960s, before which having an abortion was illegal and could result in a lifetime in prison. Support for the legalization of abortion came from medical and legal associations, alongside various feminist groups, who were growing increasingly concerned with the massive number of illegal, extremely dangerous, and often fatal, abortions that took place every year. As of 1967, there were anywhere from 35,000 to 120,000 illegal abortions taking place annuallyin Canada. That year, Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced a bill which included an amendment to section 251 of the Criminal Code that prohibited abortions. The amendments, which decriminalised contraception and allowed abortion in only the most extreme circumstances, were passed within the year.

However, it is not until January 28, 1988, that abortion was decriminalized throughout Canada, this happened following the trials of Henry Morgentaler, a doctor in Quebec who ran illegal abortion clinics in order to provide access to abortion to the people who needed it, and who was tried and acquitted for his actions multiple times. The Supreme Court of Canada declared the abortion section of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional, infringing upon women’s rights to life and liberty, therefore violating section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There were immediate and ongoing problems following the decriminalization bill. The only women who had relatively good access to abortion tended to be educated, middle and upper-class women who lived in big cities. In northern regions, as well as outside the major urban centres it was common for women to travel hundreds of miles to find the closest abortion provider. For the majority of women who were poor, there was virtually no access to legal abortion at all. Women had to go to extreme and desperate lengths to access abortion procedures. This widespread inaccessibility led to severe and life threatening measures such as self-induced abortion, specifically coat-hanger abortions, which often resulted in death. The hanger represents the desperation and horror of a time when, lacking all other options, women took matters into their own hands. Sadly, factors of inaccessibility such as these have resulted in the continued practice of self-induced abortions in both Canada and the U.S., as well as elsewhere around the world.

The politicization and active participation through means of protest and lobbying against restrictive government rules and regulations is key to positive change. In May, 1970, a national feminist protest took place, known as the Abortion Caravan. Women travelled over 3,000 miles from Vancouver to Ottawa, gathering numbers as they went. In Ottawa, the Abortion Caravan held two days of demonstrations. Among other forms of protest, they carried a coffin full of coat hangers, as symbols of those who had died trying to have an abortion. As a finale, around fifty women chained themselves to the parliamentary gallery in the House of Commons. and placed the coffin they had carried at the door of then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The Abortion Caravan helped politicize and activate women around the country.

In the 1990’s, access to abortion improved even more through activists group such as the Canadian Alliance to Repeal the Abortion Law, who are now referred to as the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League. One example was the British Columbia Access to Abortion Services act, which made it illegal to protest outside abortion clinics and medical professionals’ houses.

The protests and the dismantling of oppressive government regulations, in order to secure a greater sense of agency and autonomy is vital to breaking down hegemonic, patriarchal regulations on accessible forms of healthcare. Despite being one of the world’s leading countries in terms of accessibility and abortion rights, Canada still struggles in maintaining a widely accessible platform for women requiring these procedures and medications. The Canadian government has a duty to guarantee abortion access to women across the country, regardless of social status, geographic location, or any other factors.

The struggle towards attaining abortion rights extends beyond a Canadian context. On October 5th, Poland’s parliament lifted its controversial proposal for a total ban on abortion. Mass protests were held throughout the city’s downtown core, with the aim of bringing awareness to the government with the intent of reversing the proposal. As it currently stands, Poland remains one of Europe’s most conservative in terms of abortion laws and accessibility. Some 100,000 people, mostly women, went on strike and marched in cities across the country to protest their further loss of reproductive rights, leading high-ranking politicians to distance themselves from the proposed law. Just three days after the strike, lawmakers voted against the new law lifting the near total ban.

The recent developments in Poland may serve as a reminder of the importance of uniting against the oppressions that result from systematic patriarchal authority. Even now, despite abortion being theoretically available to everyone, activists should be aiming to bring awareness to the realities of abortion access in Canada. Taking both Canada and Poland as examples, abortion should be an accessible and universal right to people, regardless of the cause of pregnancy or the cost of medical attention and care. This crucial right, still not fully secure anywhere in the world, is necessary to allow for progress towards equity and justice.

The post Fighting for abortion rights appeared first on The McGill Daily.