[MUSIC] Many historical recordings express views of indigenous women as overly sexual, according to the sexist and repressive sexual morays of those doing the documenting. This helped to create a stereotype of indigenous women, that along with prejudicial forms of settler sexuality, continues to exist today. Explorers wrote prolifically in their journals, often going on rants about the deviant acts of the native population. Terms like Polygamy, Female Chiefs, Hermaphrodites, and Cross Dressers were seen as unnatural. As was the norm of the day, male ethnographers' and archaeologists' notes and papers, demonstrate overt sexism which often denigrated or trivialized the female experience. Therefore, indigenous women were denigrated within a broader application of the settlers' repressive understanding of sexuality. When we examine the way indigenous women are portrayed in the media or pop culture, it's often with negative connotations. The consequences of these images are that they develop and maintain negative stereotypes of indigenous women. These representations of indigenous women create harmful beliefs which are closely connected to gender violence. The image of Pocahontas, an American folklore, created the idea of the Indian Princess, who was seen as innocent and in need of protection. The story would become romanticized and later, there would be Disney's tragic love story of John Smith and Pocahontas. The image of Pocahontas would be highly commercialized and then used for merchandising purposes. The idea of the Indian Princess versus the immoral woman, creates a misrepresentation of indigenous women as being one of these polar opposites. This can be harmful for young indigenous girls, who view these images in media as a way society views them and internalize these social stereotypes. In many ways, the image of indigenous women have become culturally appropriated in Halloween costumes. During Halloween, some people dress up in Pocahontas costumes without even considering or even knowing how they contribute to these oversexualized representations. Many do not understand the harm it eventually does to indigenous women. These negative representations have led to the acceptance of stereotypes which diminishes the respect for indigenous women. The oversimplification of this marginalized population into one dimensional stereotypes and caricatures has resulted in the oversexualization and dehumanization of indigenous women. This societal issue also impacts indigenous children and two-spirited peoples. Across the country, there have been efforts to create awareness and push for an inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit peoples. According to a 2013 RCMP report, there have been 1,200 known cases of missing and murdered indigenous women. This figure does not include unreported cases and so the number of missing and murdered women and girls maybe understated. Many times, indigenous women are accused of bringing the violence upon themselves, especially for those working in the sex trade. Additionally, indigenous men have been targeted as the perpetrators of this violence. Throughout history, indigenous peoples have been misrepresented as being naturally violent. When the media reports on violence connected to indigenous communities, what is often unreported is the historical trauma indigenous peoples have endured. It does not explain the cycle of poverty many indigenous families face as a result of Canada's history of colonialism. The overreporting of these media stereotypes often cause indigenous peoples to accept and internalize these misrepresentations. Indigenous women have been the target of oppression in multiple ways and assimilation efforts in the past have included the sterilization of indigenous women. This tactic was used to prevent the reproduction of indigenous peoples and the growth of their population. Today, indigenous peoples' lands have been destroyed and polluted from resource extraction industries and has done serious harm to women's reproductive health. The toxins produced eventually come into contact with women's bodies, while stored in fats and breast milk during pregnancy. Breastfeeding directly impacts the growth of newborns. This is another example of the harm done to indigenous women's and children's bodies. Some scholar's research shows that violence against women is linked to violence against the land. Destruction of the land and wildlife gets equated with violence against indigenous women's bodies, as both are disregarded and devalued in a society that functions on capitalism and patriarchy. Patriarchal settler colonialism is also bad for indigenous men, undercutting their complementary roles with women in helping as caretakers in indigenous communities. Patriarchy has had an insidious effect on indigenous men, producing misogynistic notions of male superiority that became embedded into every aspect of their lives. These attitudes devalued and undermined entire systems of governance, education, and economies. And excluded half the population from decisions regarding cultural and spiritual aspects of life. Since the onset of colonization, the land continues to be threatened, taken, and abused by development industries. And this is parallel to what we see occurring with indigenous peoples. In many ways, indigenous women have been invisible or overlooked. Indigenous women's traditional positions in the society have been removed. Their images have been misrepresented. Their cultures mocked and they've become devalued in the process. However, indigenous women have continued to fulfill traditional caretaking and mothering roles even within the colonial context. For instance, Minnie Grey shares her memories of her strong Inuk mother, who continued to live a very traditional lifestyle even after her husband's death. And she was forced to provide love and food, shelter and clothing for all of her five small children. This accomplished Inuit woman was able to work her dog teams, hunt and fish, as well as act as a midwife and caretaker to her community. Indigenous women were skilled and proficient caretakers long before contact. And although the ongoing processes of colonization continues to undermine and dismantle their traditional lives, they continue to be resilient and determined to attain social justice along gender lines. Over the decades there have been efforts to reclaim the rights of indigenous women in the court system to establish their rights for Indian status. Our attention now focuses on the efforts of indigenous women to have representation in politics and obtain equal treatment. Specifically, indigenous women's battle for equal rights in Indian status. The gender bias provisions in the Indian Act created issues of sexual discrimination when obtaining Indian status and band acceptance. The three main court cases that confronted the patriarchal structure of the Indian Act with respect to status were Lavell v Canada (1971), Bedard v Isaac in 1972, and Lovelace v Canada in 1981. From a legalist perspective, marital status classifies people as married, divorced, widowed or single. For indigenous women marital status also largely determined Indian status, band membership, access to band programs and services, and the inheritance of property. These court cases challenged the fair protection of human rights and constitutional protection for Indian women's status. Lavell v Canada argues against the Indian Act's removal of indigenous women's status by claiming conflict with the sexual discrimination laws within the Bill of Rights. Jeannette Vivian Corbiere, an Anishnaabe woman from Wikwemikong Reserve lost her Indian status by marrying out when she married a male without Indian status. She was no longer able to reside on her reserve. The Provincial Court ruled that it did not go against any human rights or freedoms. Corbiere then petitioned the Federal Court of Appeals. In Corbiere v Canada, it was found the Indian Act did go against the Bill of Rights. This court case was significant, as it was the beginning of the legal acknowledgement that the Indian Act contained gender discrimination. Yvonne Bedard, an Iroquois woman from Brantford Reserve, married out and lived off reserve for six years. When she later divorced she found she could no longer return to her reserve. This was based on the 1951 amendment to the Indian Act, where bands could create their own membership rules for residency based on Indian status. Bedard v Isaac followed the same argument as the Lavell case, claiming that it violated Canada's Bill of Rights. The case went from the Ontario High Court to the Supreme Court of Canada. At this time Lavell and Bedard faced criticism within indigenous communities. The National Indian Brotherhood and band leaders accused them of putting individual rights before collective rights. This was seen by the NIB as disruptive to the fight for sovereignty. In 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Lavell and Bedard, dismissing the argument that the Indian Act provisions went against the Bill of Rights. The case of Lovelace versus Canada in 1981, brought before the United Nations, gained international attention for indigenous women in Canada. Sandra Lovelace, a Maliseet woman from Tobique Reserve, married a non-status man, thereby losing her Indian status. Once she divorced her situation was more apparent. She did not have Indian status and she no longer had band membership. She argued that her loss of status violated Canada's Bill of Rights and the United Nations Human Rights. Canada was found to have violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, as Lovelace was denied equal treatment. Sharon McIvor's 1985 court case, McIvor v The Registrar and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, pushed for legal changes to the Indian Acts discriminatory provisions, which led eventually to Bill C-31. Initially, McIvor's case had three positions. To remove discriminatory parts of the Indian Act, to allow band control over band membership, and to restore rights to individuals who lost Indian status. While these were successful victories, the amendments through Bill C-31 did not reconcile the injustices surrounding status. Indigenous women's concern with status was not addressed until Bill C-3, with the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. Bill C-3, which went into effect on January 31st, 2011, addressed what was known as the Double Mother Clause. This clause stipulated that the great grandchildren of women who married out did not received Indian status. This was not the case for men. The discriminatory policies and practices of the Indian Act, through the regulation of status and band membership, severed important kinship ties. When the indigenous women lost their status due to marrying non-status men, they and their children were separated from extended family networks and communities. Often, when indigenous women divorced, they found themselves not only without familial support, but often in financial hardship. As a result, many of these dispossessed women and children struggled with issues of poverty, unemployment, domestic violence, and lack of adequate housing. The long-term consequences of discriminatory practices of the Indian Act reverberate even today, as generations of indigenous families continue to struggle with poverty and issues of identity and belonging. The White Paper of 1969 initiated an Indian Sovereignty Movement where indigenous groups formed in order to address their rights. The voices of indigenous women were excluded from this push for sovereignty. Later on two indigenous women's groups formed as a result of the lack of representation for women's concerns and perspectives in government debates, politics, and legal reforms. In the 1970s two main indigenous women's groups were formed, the Indian Rights for Indian Women, and the Native Women's Association of Canada. The Charlottetown Accord of 1992 addressed aboriginal people's inherent right to self-government, which led to constitutional negotiations with the government. It involved indigenous organizations and leadership that were largely male-dominated. This process meant that indigenous women's voices had to be filtered through and approved by male-dominated organizations. As a result the Native Women's Association of Canada challenged the Charlottetown process in order to push the inclusion of women's input. This challenge demonstrated that there was a need to incorporate indigenous women in government debates. Over the years there have been efforts to restore indigenous women to a place of honor with the inclusion of their voices, perspectives, and traditional roles within their communities. This process begins with the analysis of indigenous feminism, how it emerged, and how it's different from mainstream feminism. We will look at the efforts to decolonize, and restore indigenous women and two spirit people to a place of respect and honor. While current mainstream feminism in Canada addresses the needs and concerns of many women, indigenous women's interests are often distinct from other women in North America. Mainstream feminism is generally described as having three distinct movements. The first movement is identified by the Suffragette Movement at the turn of the 1900s. This group, consisting of largely wealthy, white women, were focused on gaining the right vote. The second wave of the early 60s to the 80s ushered in the Women's Liberation Movement and dealt with matters of family, sexuality and work. Beginning in the 1990s and continuing to the present, Third Wave Feminism illuminates the multi-faceted experiences by women of all ages and races. Often known as Contemporary Feminism, this period, led by Generation X, focused on issues that dealt with gender, race, economic, and social injustices. For non-indigenous women, feminism had begun with a fight for equality and human rights against firmly established patriarchal structures. Indigenous women came from from tribal societies that were egalitarian in nature. As a consequence, feminism is a return to their full participation and inclusion in decisions regarding land, politics, laws, and nationhood that indigenous sovereignty and governance systems were built upon. For indigenous women feminism began in 1492 when they resisted the imposition of European gender systems based on the heteropatriarchal views of the colonizer. For indigenous women, feminism must include the diversity of their cultural, social, and political experiences. Indigenous feminism is a response to the racial and gendered violence and oppression that indigenous women, girls, and genderful people face. Indigenous feminism then, is more than just a struggle for equality. It is the return to egalitarian principles based on systems of interrelatedness and accountability. Today indigenous feminism must take into a count indigenous women's perspectives, their histories, cultures, travel societies, and values. The establishment of the Native Women's Association of Canada and the inclusion of women's councils at the Metis National Council, The Assembly of First Nations, and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami demonstrates the success and work of these feminist efforts. Although there has been an increase in effort and changes over the decades for indigenous women's equality in Canada, there is still work to be done in the political, social, economic and cultural realms. Indigenous peoples traditions surrounding gender roles and sexuality are being remembered, reclaimed claimed and restored. There are gatherings and organizations that create safe spaces for the acceptance and remembrance of teachings, about third and fourth gender categories, in indigenous cultures. These movements work towards a greater appreciation and understanding about the values of equality within indigenous people's gender roles and sexualities. The well known Cheyenne saying, a nation is not conquered until the hearts of it's women are on the ground. Acknowledges the importance of indigence women in the community. Indigenous women today take up a diversity of roles as mothers, grandmothers, community leaders, university students, and professors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, filmmakers and so many more. These successful stories demonstrate the resiliency of indigenous women and two spirit people. Despite a long history of oppression, racism, and gender discrimination. [MUSIC] >> I, in talking about indigenous feminism, I came to calling myself a feminist kind of late. I was probably 40 before I called myself a feminist. And I didn't become an academic until I was in my mid-30s, so that's some context for that. But I came to feminism as an indigenous woman through feminist science studies. And that is not how most self identified indigenous feminists, I think, come to feminism. Many of them, I think, come to feminism by being in collaboration and conversation with other women of color, right, or other ethnic minorities. And there's been a lot of theorizing done in women of color scholarly communities about how white women's feminism does not necessarily serve women of color, doesn't serve indigenous women. And so I'm in conversation with some of the way that people are talking about indigenous feminism in what I would call the mainstream of indigenous feminism. And that would be sort of thinking about the intersections of race, feminism, and indigeniety. But because I study scientists, and because I hang out with a lot of scientists. And because I have found it particularly productive to work with self identified feminist scientists. I started to think about feminism as something that I could embrace, that wasn't just about white women, when I started hanging out with scientists. And I realized that feminist scientists and feminists were making the same critiques of science and its power that indigenous people make. So feminists were worried about the power of science to discuss gender as primarily biological. They were worried about the imposition of heterosexual norms and ideas on to the way that science happens. So for example, usually heterosexual white male scientist would see these biologically heterosexual dynamics going on in animal communities and of course they were seeing what they wanted to see. They were seeing what they thought was normal. And so there's been so much feminist critique of heteronormativity in science. There's been feminist critique of scientists imposing gender binaries that make women passive and men active. So if you look at the way that text books, biology text books, narrated the fertilization of an egg via sperm, there's all of these really western, heteronormative gender binaries that get imposed onto the way that story gets told, it's fascinating. And feminist scientists have seen a different kind of process happen when eggs get fertilized by sperm in a way where the egg's not so passive, where there's more action going on. So, a feminist lens can really help you see biology in a very different way. And they were relating the way that biology gets narrated to the oppression and disenfranchisement of women in the world, the disenfranchisement of women from science. I make similar critiques about how scientific rhetorics narrate indigenous lives, how they purport to describe us as largely biological or racialized populations. And I'm really interested in speaking back to that, so I saw that fundamentally, what feminists were doing, was criticizing hierarchies in science. And criticizing the power of largely straight white Western males to narrate the world, to tell us how nature works. And they really devalued indigenous knowledge, they in general historically have devalued women's knowledge. So I decided I need to be at the same table as them and now I can call myself a feminist because feminism isn't just about defending women's rights, feminism is about critiquing hierarchy. It's about critiquing a dominant society that purports to rule us all through white, Western, male science. And it's not that I reject science, right, I'm really interested in feminist science. I'm interested in science that is not so hierarchical that's more democratic. At the same time I came into conversation as well with disability studies theorists, they call themselves crip theorists sometimes. I came into conversation with queer theorists because crip theorists, queer theorists, feminist theorists, and indigenous theorists were all critiquing these same kinds of undemocratic, scientific hierarchical practices. Then I come into conversation with indigenous feminists and they're not largely dealing with the scientific communities that I'm dealing with. And one of the people that I'm really in conversation with this Kim Anderson, who's a Cree Metis feminist. And Kim talks a lot about indigenous feminism as not just about care taking women and supporting women's roles. But that women need to be strong actors in our societies because they also help care take the family and the community. But she also talks about men's roles in care taking the community as well. And so, for me, some of the indigenous feminists that I follow, Kay Chanelly is another one at the University of Montana, they think a lot about the role of indigenous feminism and supporting women's roles as part of the broader project of care taking in indigenous community. And so, for me, that's what the ultimate project is about. [MUSIC]
