Category Archives: Reblogged

any post that’s almost all links

Midweek mini movie break: (when feminist themes collide) Sports + India + Feminism = Chak De!

Sometimes, things all come together. The internet really helps.  So,

Presentation I saw at Queen’s workshop last weekend on national/international elite sports events and funding and gender analysis (thanks activist/journalist/athlete Laura Robinson and Queen’s 2L Erin Durant)


Meeting with feminists from Jindal Global Law School on Monday at Osgoode and conversation about ways to collaborate including online (thanks Priya Gupta and Ashleigh Barnes)


lots of talk at Osgoode lately about law and film (thanks Ruth Buchanan/Lisa Philipps and others)



=  THIS!

Click here for contextualising post:   Generalising » Blog Archive » Chak De! India and feminism.

I kind of recommend reading the blog post, which I think is fun and thorough (“is Chak De! India feminist?”).  You might also benefit from this from wikipedia (ok, don’t  roll your eyes – it is a movie):

Khan realizes that he can only turn the girls into a winning team if he can help them to overcome these divisions and learn to cooperate with and help each other. Thus during the first few days, he benches a number of players who refuse to conform to his rules, including the most experienced player, Bindia Naik (Shilpa Shukla). In response, she repeatedly attempts to encourage the players to revolt against Khan. Bindia finally succeeds and in anger, Khan resigns. As a sign of good will, however, he invites the staff and team to a going away lunch. The anger that the team felt towards Khan and each other evaporates, however, when some local boys make a pass at Mary and Molly. In response, Balbir attacks them, an act which leads to a brawl between the boys and the entire team. Khan, recognizing that this is their first instance of working together as a team, repeatedly prevents the staff from intervening. His only action is to stop a man from striking one of the women with a cricket bat from behind, telling him that there are no cowards (with a double entendre meaning of the Hindi word for coward) in hockey.[15] After the fight, the women (now bonded as a team) beg Khan to remain as their coach.

On the other hand, if you’re just here because I tagged the post Shahrukh Khan, go ahead to the vid – there’s not too much of him in there, though. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Happy Persons Day, Canada! A Roundup

It’s the anniversary of the JCPC decision in the famous Edwards case about whether the phrase “qualified persons” in the British North America Act, 1867 (in other words, the what is now the Constitution of Canada) included “women”.  Apparently, it did (does).   This link says that it was disappointing that Emily Murphy, one of the Famous Five women who brought the challenge (see them on the $50 bill),  wasn’t appointed to the Senate – but that’s a nice little can of worms for feminists like me.  I’m not particularly disappointed.  Have you read The Black Candle? Emily Murphy’s career as a magistrate and writer means we know  quite a bit about her views on race and drugs, inter alia.  What I know, I don’t like.  Here’s how one site tries to explain her views on immigration.

What can we do to celebrate this big day? You could read and quibble with’s selection of the 10 most significant women’s rights cases since 1929.   If Person’s Day feels a bit too celebratory to you, consider West Coast Leaf’s CEDAW report card for British Columbia and ask if you can celebrate BC’s move from a D average to a C-.   Maybe, like the Osgoode Hall Women’s Caucus, you could think about participating in the Toronto Take Back the Night event this Friday.

Manliness & Feminist Law Professors

Prof John Kang over at Feminist Law Professors offers up Manliness, Part I: Anyone Call for a Knight?

I know that this blog is called Feminist Law Professors but it seems to me that much of feminism as an ontology is also about masculinity or issues of manliness (consider that notwithstanding its title MacKinnon’s Feminism Unmodified is in substantial ways an untrammeled exploration of hypermasculinity and manliness).

After bringing out the big guns (MacKinnon!) in his defence,  he presents his thoughts on the image of knights and damsels in legal cases. Maybe because I’m constantly engaging in the big Princess Debate with two People I live with (“ok, but, would you like a princess if she wasn’t boring, maman?”),   I thought this looked interesting and I would love to know more about how it plays out in the Canadian context.

I originally assumed that the knights were the judges, but that is not the story that Kang is telling.  I think my assumptions were linked to a presentation I heard recently by McGill Prof Desmond Manderson.  He talked about the historical development of the image of justice as a blind woman in his discussion of Law and the Arts.  I was wondering whether there was a “male” image of justice as a knight/rescuer.  I was also recalling chairing a thesis defence which posited judicial chivalry as an explanatory tool in analysing the sentences meted out to female drug “mules”.  So, another thing to go on my “look into it when you get the time” list.

In any case, I think some of this masculinities scholarship is extremely interesting indeed – Feminist legal scholar Nancy E. Dowd’s “The Man Question” was released in September by NYU Press, and I am intrigued – my copy is on its way.   Here’s a link to an article which was a part of the larger book project.

en garde!