Winter 1996

We wish to thank David Nobbs for the thirty months he gave to the editing and production of this newsletter and to Michel Levac for the time (and money) he has expended on the MNC home page. Both men are pressed on many sides for their time and energy and are shifting their focus. Michael and Ken will continue to care for the communications of the Network: Michael, primarily for the home page; and Ken, primarily for the newsletter. However, let it be said that if there are individuals or groups wishing to take responsibility for either or both, the fall of '96 or the winter of '97 is a good time of transition. Lets discuss it further at the summer conference.

We also wish to acknowledge a long list of correspondents. Not in any order, we were in contact with, or had contact from: Andrew Safer, Bill Usher, Stuart McKinnon, Will Boyce, Harvey Schachter, Ray Jones, Terry Boyd, Ian Russell, Richard Kerr, Jim Richardson, Craig Jones, Michael Kaufman, Dave Stevenson, Bob Neufeld, Paul Lafleur, Greg Little, David Murphy, Roger Davies, Peter Davison, Larry Finkelman, David Rice-Lampert, Lawrence Brenn, Richard Briggs, Forrest Smith, Wally Roth, Les Ott, Bert Young, Greg Carter, Johnny Yap, Eric Folsom, Mick Cooper, Rob Collins, Ed Barton, Richard Barry, Karen Beaton and Paul Kivel. Many others sent in their membership renewals. Thank you Ray Jones for sending us interesting articles.

We need your advice. Should we continue sending out the newsletter to those who haven't renewed? What should be the cut-off point? As of now, we have a mailing list of 164 people from coast-to-coast and around the world, 36 of whom have known e-mail addresses, and 53 of whom have renewed their memberships or subscriptions ($10 to $30). There are 92 former members kept on a 'passive' list. Prior to producing this issue there is $1200 in the bank. So, if you haven't sent in your $10 -$30 for '95-'96 please do so NOW!

After the Kingston Conference, a number of participants had a discussion (face-to-face and electronic) on the subject of pro-feminist process guidelines. For the time being, the editors have put the accumulated notes in a file folder for future discussion. Thank you to those who contributed.

And now for the news. Larry Finkelman, Thom Parkhill and others on staff at UNB have been working for some time on a Peer Education Project for Men. We are pleased to reprint a recent report as well as the text of Larry's December 6th comments on CBC Radio.

When Terry Boyd and Joseph-Dunlop Addley delivered the key note address on the theme of Love, Justice, Sex and Money at the Kingston Men's Conference, October 20-22, 1995, many of us were moved by the depth and scope of their (multimedia) address. At a recent meeting in Ottawa to plan the summer MNC Conference, (see Paul Lafleur's report) Bob Neufeld hauled out his extensive notes from the presentation and began reading. Those of us who had heard the original, realized that this presentation was an intellectual and emotional context for our times and was a necessary backdrop for the conference. What better venue to continue the conversation Terry and Joseph put forth?

(Note: When we presented our keynote, we took turns reading from our prepared script as well as making impromptu additions now and then. We may have left the impression that each of us was reading only those parts which we ourselves had written. Such was not the case: the presentation was a co-operative effort from beginning to end, and often we were reading what the other had written. We hope the text which follows is revealing of those moments when either of us is speaking from our own specific experience, as well as celebrating those experiences and analysis which we share in common.)

[Web Note: Only Part I of the speech at this location. If you want to read the whole speech, it is available with graphics here.]

Our thanks to the men in Kingston for organizing yet another conference, ten years since the first, and for their vote of confidence in asking us to be the keynote speakers. We also thank those men who have stood here before us, and we really are humbled with the thought of adding our voices to theirs: Stuart Hill, Bruce Kidd, Michael Kaufman, Ray Jones, Harvey Schachter and Grant Wedge.

In Styles of Radical Will, Susan Sontag writes, "An event that makes new feelings conscious is always the most important experience a person can have. These days, it's a pressing moral imperative as well." We shared her belief as we prepared our presentation, and we hope some of our feelings will be shared by each one of you.

How can profeminist men (working in partnership with feminists) best, most effectively and most fairly respond to the challenges that confront us and our society in the new millennium? Especially to the neo-conservative agenda which seems hell bent to undo the gains we have made over the past two decades: equity initiatives, pro-choice initiatives, pro-lesbian and gay initiatives, anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-heterosexist initiatives--to name just a few? And how can we frame and better understand these challenges in the context of the theme for this year's conference, "Love, Justice, Sex and Money"?

In one of the discussions that we had with Ray (Jones) and Greg (Carter) as the editorial collective for the MNC newsletter, we talked about the crucial need to keep the word "progressive" in the phrase "progressive social change." As we prepared and now share our thoughts with you today, we see social change happening everywhere around us. But how much, if any, is truly and fairly progressive? How much of it is rooted in love? How much of it reflects justice for all? How much of it celebrates human sexuality? How much of it is motivated by humane monetary considerations? Today, we want to share some of ours and other people's thoughts and stories about love, justice, sex and money. About where we've been historically. About what is happening now all round us. About where we, as profeminist men, need to situate ourselves today and in the future.

One book which has had a significant impact on my, Terry's, thinking is a book by Rita Brock, a feminist theologian. In Journeys by Heart, Brock writes, "Despite our scientific advances and economic affluence, suffering afflicts our world profoundly, for our new technologies permit us to threaten life as never before and our affluence has not helped the poor." Brock's thesis is "we live in a brokenhearted society." Our society is brokenhearted because it is structured on principles of power and control--the forces of patriarchy which disconnect us from our selves, from our bodies, from our children, from our neighbours, from our world.

In order to grasp the full impact of Brock's message that we live in a broken-hearted society, we need to have a better understanding of what Brock means by heart? Heart is her metaphor for the human self. Heart involves the union of body, spirit, reason and passion. To take heart is to gain courage--note that "cor" in Latin means heart, and it is from this word that French derives the word "coeur" which means "heart," and we get our words "courage" and "core." Sentimentality is not heart. To have a change of heart is to change perspectives. Finally, heart is the core of our being from which we gain courage to change the world. Patriarchy created our broken-hearted society. Patriarchal family is the cornerstone of male dominance (when you're walking about this campus where we are meeting, look for the cornerstones--mostly unveiled by men). Our ability to transform patriarchal society lies within the family. The New Right continually defends the "family" and "family values"--these are code words for patriarchy and male dominance. Brock's' core message is that we need to redefine family in a non-patriarchal way, or to paraphrase Brock, we need a new concept of family not based on male-dominance but grounded in heart.

Ten years ago, buying a house together with Terry and his family, Marion and their daughter Tina, I was reluctant to "acquiesce" to their wish to call us "family." Partly, I feared I'd be absorbed into the pre-existing construct of "their" family, their history together (what our friend Brady calls "life before Joseph"). As well, I felt a general reluctance to embrace a patriarchal construct of "family." Those of you who heard me speak as a panelist at Grindstone, "Speaking from the Heart," know that I grew up in a very abusive and violent patriarchal family. Hence, I had good reasons why I did not want to use the word "family," and instead, insisted that we were a "chosen household." Now I believe the exact "opposite" and see naming ourselves "family" as an essential political/profeminist act. In one chapter of Frank Browning's Culture of Desire he tells a story of

Sheldon, his New England doctor friend who flew to Boston to visit his brother's family:
Sheldon had taken boxes of toys, including a large, inflatable penguin that propelled his 5-year-old nephew into gales of glee. It was a weekend of children--child talk, child development, child screaming--all of which provides much of the reason Sheldon goes to see his family. Late afternoon on Sunday, Sheldon's sister-in-law announced that she had rented the video of Longtime Companion, the 1990 movie about gay men confronting AIDS. She and Sheldon's brother had been eager to see it, she said. The kids wandered off to their own rooms, and the adults gathered at the set.

Ten minutes into the movie, Sheldon's brother stood up and walked out of the room. No comment. No explanation.... An hour and a half later, he came back [and] asked what he'd missed.
Sheldon didn't answer, leaving it for his sister-in-law to explain. Sheldon drove to the airport that evening, wondering why he continued to visit at all.

"What seems so hypocritical," Sheldon told Browning over the phone, "is that they expected me to be so attentive to all the taking-care-of-baby stuff,...but none of them had any insight into how really rude my brother was, how he had completely discounted what I am and what's going on in my life and my friends' lives."

Browning's analysis? As a homosexual man, Sheldon was presumed to be without family. To the extent that he could have family, it would be as a peculiar uncle to the standard procreative family his brother and sister-in-law were building. Whatever lovers, ex-lovers, soul mates, and devoted companions Sheldon had would disappear as he walked into his brother's house; if their names did emerge, they would be taken by his blood family as nothing more than
passing consorts. Such people would not, apparently, merit the status of genuine family.

Browning concludes his chapter on "Reconstructing the Extended Family" with these words: "[we have] to move the family of friends beyond a celebration of private happiness to an affirmation of civic participation."

The defeat of Bill 167 illustrates the power of patriarchy to define "family" and to mount vicious attacks to maintain its stranglehold. With the defeat of Bill 167, we all lost an historical opportunity to mend our brokenhearted society. Let's not kid ourselves. The Forces which "killed" Bill 167 (including some backbenchers in the NDP caucus) are identical to those that killed Jesus, hundreds of thousands of unnamed women (the so-called witches of the Inquisition), Gandhi, people of colour living in slavery, Martin Luther King Jr., gay men in parks, women and children in their homes--any and all who seek what Haunami-Kay Trask in her book Eros and Power calls "erotic power"--the power to effect change through connectedness, through love, through co-creation of the world rather than domination of it: "Erotic power . . . integrates the sensual and the rational, the spiritual and the political. In the feminist vision, Eros is both love and power."

Brock says, "We can only become self-aware and self-accepting through relationships which co-create us." The patriarchal family, because it is grounded in male dominance, does not foster either self-awareness or self-acceptance. It is not a co-creative environment. To co-create we need to be distinct individuals who mutually recognize and validate one another. Authentic families must be built on mutual respect among distinct individuals. In the recently published Friends and Lovers: Gay Men Write About the Families They Create, one of the contributors Michael Bronski describes Sporters, a club at the centre of gay life in Boston in 1972, in a way very consistent with our theme: "Sporters reinforced for me--no embodied--the sense of community and political family that is the building ground, the essence of politics: its affirmation as well as its reason for being."

In the sense that Trask and Brock mean it, we consider our own family co-creative, and we are very fortunate in sharing the lives of many others struggling to co-create their own families in the face of the fundamentalist, new right's hostility. Many of you are in this room with us now. We celebrate you.

Now we turn to the question of Justice. Vixens or Victims: what can we learn from the Bernardo/Simpson trials? Shortly after the Bernardo verdict, the Toronto Star published a multipaged feature article. Except for two references to Bernardo, the entire copy focused on Karla Homolka and her plea bargain. Homolka was foregrounded throughout as the devil incarnate, and the legal authorities were demonized for negotiating a pack with the devil. Even though there was overwhelming evidence presented at the trial to prove that Homolka was herself a victim of Bernardo's rage and violence, the focus in the article was on Homolka as vixen--a spiteful, manipulative, evil woman.

None of our observations are in any way intended to minimize or deny Homolka's criminality or her participation in rape and murder. What we believe needs to be focused on is the fact that the media perpetuate stereotypes of women grounded in patriarchy: Man's loss of Eden is blamed on Eve, sirens draw men to their destruction, Helen causes nations to war against each other. Karla's representation in the media is yet another of these ongoing cultural and historical myths which blame women for men's actions. Classical literature gives men few options: plug your ears with wax, tie yourself to the mast, or be destroyed. In the Simpson trial the message is loud and clear: a man can be a wifebeater in America and still be a national hero. Racism is foregrounded, and the victims (a woman and a man) are marginalized.

Clearly, although there are refreshing moments of progressive change in the justice system, like the gun control legislation, the justice system, particularly here in Ontario, is regressing back to patriarchal priorities. We need only look at a short list of some of the recent actions taken by the Harris government (what Svend Robinson has called Harris and his thugs) to see this regressive trend: reduction in funding to legal aid--access to the justice system by women, the poor, the marginalized will be jeopardized; reduction or elimination of funding for women's shelters--the patriarchal agenda is clear--it's called denial; elimination of men's education program--rehabilitation is not part of the patriarchal agenda; elimination of funding for young offenders' services--yet another example that rehabilitation is not part of the patriarchal agenda; closing half-way houses--here the patriarchal agenda is blatantly obvious, since the closings will increase costs rather than reduce them--going from $80 per day to $150.

Now some of you may be asking how does the closing of half-way houses represent a return to patriarchal values since most half-way houses provided rehabilitative services for men? In a patriarchal system, men are at the top--but not all men. In the new Ontario, the men at the top are white, middle-class, family-oriented, heterosexual, law-abiding men. Men in half-way houses are criminals, who should be put where they belong--in prison, until they have served their time. Patriarchal justice is punitive. It is the justice of the school play ground. You know the kind: "if he steps out of line, beat the shit out of him--that'll put him in his place." Patriarchal justice is not the justice of rehabilitation for it believes in the ideology that people change their behaviour only through force. In contrast, justice grounded in heart (feminist justice--not patriarchal justice) recognizes from experience (not ideology) that punishing people rarely changes their behaviour; in fact, it usually makes it worse. Hence, feminist justice is not punitive. Justice grounded in heart knows that people can change if provided the necessary supports to do so; hence, it believes in rehabilitation programs. Finally, justice grounded in heart knows from experience that people learn from their mistakes when they are expected to rebuild what they destroyed. This restorative approach to justice is usually translated into community service--but, it could be extended far beyond.

Now we come to the topic of sex. Here we weren't quite sure where to start, so we decided to start where most men start, with masturbation.
The conclusion will be printed in the Spring issue.

This free conference in Kingston was certainly worth the price. Unfortunately, a last minute search couldn't find rides for everyone going from Toronto. Four of us rented a car. I was billeted in a house with a view of the lake (and rain clouds). Around 80 men and a few women attended throughout the weekend, a dozen from Toronto.

The opening night had music and poetry. In their Saturday morning presentation, Terry Boyd and Joseph Dunlop-Addley from London used a computer connected to a slide projector. They referred to a book by Rita Brock, Journeys by Heart, as a blueprint to change from a broken-hearted society to one that celebrates co-creative families, and they attacked the new right agenda. We didn't have time to ask questions and explore the issues they raised, but broke for coffee/apple cider and headed to one of nine workshops. In a "Love" workshop I said "om" and felt the energy from the centre of the earth. In a "Sex" workshop I wanted to leave wearing a button saying proudly "I masturbate." The "Justice" and "Money" workshops I attended weren't as successful, although others found their best workshops in those sections.

The copies of the MMAV NEWSLETTER that I put out were quickly scooped up (but our flyers weren't?!) Few attended the Brother Peace Vigil - Ken Fisher's last minute attempt to contact me failed and I wasn't prepared to speak on the history and meaning of this event which Metro Men participated in 1989 and 1990. The annual Brother Peace event in Winnipeg had a computer connection to this conference.

Everyman from Ottawa displayed their magazine which Peter from Toronto refuses to carry at his bookstore, Another story. I told the editor the angry (anti-feminist) articles are garbage, and that he should have more articles with stories of men's experiences and personal growth. Saturday evening we saw the video Backlash to Change - Moving Beyond Resistance which was made for universities. I also played a game of pool, and danced with 20 men. At the closing session Martin Dufresne from Montreal gently challenged having men only workshops (he accepts gay men only workshops), while the mythopoetic guys wanted some ritual.

The organizers, whose patience and friendliness were amazing, will hold another one next fall. If you're interested in personal sharing type workshops and partying with pro-feminist men from other cities, plan to attend next fall.

The sixth annual conference opened on Friday evening with 200 in attendance to hear John Stoltenberg address the topic Why Some Men Are Violent and Some are Not.

It was a dedicated group of about 20 pro-feminist, both male and female, who met on Saturday morning at 8:00 a.m. to continue the Brother Peace Weekend of activities with John Stoltenberg. In this more intimate setting John progressed with the theme that he had developed the night before.

John described "The Manhood Act"; as that special relationship between two men whereby each is confronted with the other and tries to display his "manhood" by establishing dominance over the other. Rather than annihilating each other however, they often opt for proving their "manhood" to each other by joining forces and forcing dominance over a third party that they both imagine as being inferior to themselves. In other words, man "A" meets man "B" and together dominate "C". "C" is most often a women, but can also be someone of a different race, a child, and animal, a gay man, a lesbian, or anyone "other" than themselves.

As the morning progressed, several members of our group participated in some role playing of different scenario's to illustrate circumstances in which the "manhood act" is played out in our society. Nothing disclosed the "manhood act" more graphically than when the "role-play" turned into "real-play" and we received word that early Saturday morning there had been a gay bashing in nearby Mostyn Park. One of our gay brothers, i.e. a real-life "C" had been beaten and left for dead, and was now fighting for his life.

With heavy hearts we ended our morning discussing this tragic event. We then broke up and conducted the first of two vigils at the December 6th Women's Memorial at our Legislative Building. After laying two roses in remembrance of the two women who had died from male violence this year in Winnipeg, we then chanted as we walked to Mostyn Park to lay a rose for the latest victim of male violence.

All in all, it was a very sobering and sombre ending to an otherwise enjoyable and informative Brother Peace Celebration.

The conference concluded on Saturday night with about 100 attending a performance by comedian Ken Robinson from Montreal.

Thank you for having me here today. I am delighted to see so many men here on a frosty Saturday morning. I am also delighted that the White Ribbon Campaign has managed to keep going over the years because I believe that we will only end violence against women if we all work together. Violence against women is not a women's issues. Violence against women is a human rights issue.

And make no mistake about it, it is a problem of epidemic proportions. In Ottawa and Vanier alone this year police have responded to over 3500 complaints of domestic violence. Every year in Ottawa-Carleton several women die at the hands of their male partner.

But thinking about this every year on December 6 is not enough. And thinking about it for one week during the White Ribbon Campaign is not enough. We must all work every day of every year to end violence against women. And by this I mean:
-wear a White Ribbon and talk about violence against women in our society;
-raise money for women's organizations working to end violence;
-speak out against violence every time;
-point out to your colleagues and friends when they make sexist or misogynist remarks;
-provide a good example to the boys and young men in your life.

And this year, I have another task for you. As governments cut back on funding, it is the most vulnerable in our society who suffer the most - women and their children. So please let all your political representatives know that you do not support these cutbacks.

In our community, the Federal Government is cutting funding for Women's Career Counselling; a service that has helped women for the past twenty years to re-enter the work force and become tax paying, self-supporting members of society.

The Provincial Government has cut funding for Harmony House, a second stage shelter for women escaping abusive relationships. And the City of Ottawa is contemplating cutting funding for Women's Place, a referral service for women who are wanting to escape a violent relationship or need other services. And the Region is cutting the grants for most of their social service agencies.

Please let your politicians know that the outcome of these cuts we women in our community as they are force to endure violence in their homes and streets.

There's something about growing up male in North America that shapes how we think about women and how we relate to ourselves. We take what we've learned from sport and apply it to the rest of our lives. When I hear young men talk about sex, they use metaphors like getting to first base, and scoring.

This places sex in an arena like hockey, where winning is everything and the other team is the enemy. On the playing field we've learned a set of values, and it may be a small step from war on ice to aggression in the bedroom.

When we think of violence against women, we often think of men like Mark Lepine. We imagine a woman being attacked by a stranger, by someone who seems "crazy" or "mentally ill".

The truth is women face the greatest risk of violence from men they know. A 1993 STATSCAN survey found that 51% of Canadian women reported experiencing physical or sexual violence from the age of 16, and that almost all their aggressors were boyfriends, husbands, dates, friends, family and neighbours.

Violence in relationships has been perceived as a woman's issue, but it's a man's problem. As men, it's time to start looking at our relationships with those people we care about most. We need to educate ourselves. We need to educate our friends. We need to educate our sons about violence and what it means to be a man in our culture.

As men, we feel positive about ourselves through accomplishments in work and sport. We feel good when we dominate, win and overcome obstacles. A woman's reluctance to have sex, becomes another obstacle to overcome. Scoring boosts self esteem, while rejection becomes devastating. It's clear this kind of accomplishment doesn't work, either for women, or for ourselves.

We've defined who we are by what we do, and when we stop pushing ourselves to achieve, we're left with an emptiness inside. It's more difficult to cope with this in constructive ways, than to fill the void with dominance. We need to experience these feelings and also rely on other men for social support. For it's not simply the fact that we have this emptiness that creates problems, but what we do with it that's critical.

We're brought up to be strong, and anger is one of the few emotions we allow ourselves. The slogan on a young man's T-shirt tells it all: no crying, not ever, no fear. These values make sense on the playing field, but they work against us in relationships where being vulnerable fosters intimacy, and sharing a range of feeling connects us to our partners.

We have trouble recognizing where assertion leaves off and where aggression begins. We believe we're being persuasive, when we're coercive. We believe we're being firm, when we're using force. And , when we cross the line, we hold the woman responsible for being provocative. There is a spectrum of violent behaviour toward women, and most of us occupy, or have occupied, a place on that spectrum.

We need to look at ourselves honestly and acknowledge the discomfort that a part of ourselves may be more like Mark Lepine than we care to admit.

In 1995 the WRC continued its focus on youth and education. As in 1994, we distributed our education kits (The White Ribbon Student Action Kit and Healthy Attitudes, Healthy Relationships) to over 1000 high schools across Canada.

Materials have been significantly updated (Frequently Asked Questions About the WRC and What Every Man Can Do To Help End Men's Violence Against Women) and we are again distributing ribbons.

We continue to be indebted to the support and involvement of the labour movement.
As in past years, this year's Campaign is quite varied. In addition to continued efforts in London, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, White Horse and Vancouver some events stand out.
·Scouts blanketed the West Edmonton Mall with White Ribbons.
· In Bonnyville, Alberta, they recruited and publicized speakers and raised money for the
Margaret Savage Family Crisis Centre through their second annual White Ribbon Junior Hockey Game.
·Sarnia took their campaign again to the Santa Claus Parade, but had a much wider impact this year through radio, television, (Canada AM!) and newspapers. Their funds went to the local Interval House.

At the end of November we were approached by Ontario's Tory Caucus for a supply of White Ribbons. In the light of their cutbacks directly undercutting the support for women and children, we refused. The caucus representative insinuated that we could loose our provincial funding. Of course, we don't have any government funding. The story was covered by the Toronto Star.

At the Beijing International Women's Conference, the Norwegian White Ribbon Campaign was present. They focus their campaign around Fathers Day!

Which is where we, in part, are heading also. Groups in Toronto, Ottawa and other places are aiming once again to have events around Fathers Day. This year, the concept is the first annual Father-Son Walk. For more information contact our office at

The Peer Education Project For Men is a new program being organized by Counselling Services and is aimed at preventing sexual aggression among students the of University of New Brunswick Fredericton (UNB-F) and St. Thomas University (STU). The project involves male students from both universities in educating other men about sexual aggression. Eleven student volunteers have received three days of training as peer educators to provide educational programs for other men on campus. It is hoped that as the number of men who participate as peer educators or who attend the educational workshops increases, the number of men who find sexually aggressive behaviour unacceptable will also increase, and that over time, the program will help reduce the incidence of unwanted sexual experiences among women.

A 1992 survey of students attending UNB-F and STU found that one in three female students reported experiencing one or more unwanted sexual experiences in the preceding year. In the same survey, 96% of female victims reported their aggressors were known to them--boyfriends, non-romantic friends, acquaintances, dates, former boyfriends, etc. Only 4% were strangers. This suggests that sexual aggression takes place in the context of ongoing social relationships and that to prevent sexual aggression, men need to look at their relationships with those they care most about. The aim of the project is to help men examine their attitudes and values about women in the context of romantic relationships.

The workshops are designed for groups of 10 to 15 male students and are approximately 1 1/2 hours in length. In each workshop, two Peer Educators lead students in a series of exercises designed to stimulate a discussion of values and attitudes in the context of romantic relationships. Participants watch a video, have time for reflection, and examine the differences between sexual assertiveness and sexual aggression.

To become a peer educator, students must be in their second, third, or last year of study, and have a GPA of 2.0 or better. They must also demonstrate some understanding of the issue of sexual aggression, a recognition that sexually aggressive behaviour is unacceptable, and possess a sincere desire to work toward its prevention. They must also be comfortable with speaking in front of a group. After successful completion of an individual interview, candidates are invited to attend the three day training program.

The aim of the training is to provide peer educators with knowledge about sexual aggression, and provide them an opportunity to examine their own attitudes and behaviour. The training is made up of a number of modules: participation in the 1 1/2 hour workshop that they will be presenting to other students, information on the incidence and circumstances of sexual aggression, the causes of sexual aggression, sexual assault law, communication skills, and practice teaching. After training, the peer educators are expected to work approximately two hours per week throughout the academic year.

An informal committee made up of five members drawn from faculty/staff/students of both UNB-F and STU assists Counselling Services in running the project. I, in my role as counsellor, serve as project co-ordinator. The committee acts in an advisory/resource/ support capacity in the planning, delivery, evaluation, and funding of the project. Members of the committee are: Professor Dwight Scott, Faculty of Engineering, Neville Cheeseman and Maria George, Campus Ministry, and two students, one appointed from STU and one from UNB-F. The project has received funding from the Muriel McQueen Ferguson Foundation, and has the support of the Saint Thomas Student Union, and the UNB-F Student Union.

The overall objective of the peer education program is to foster an attitudinal climate within the university community such that sexually aggressive behaviour is unacceptable. It is expected the project will function to reach this objective by the creation of an ever widening circle of men who are deeply committed to ending sexual aggression. This will be done by involving men in the peer educator training and in educational workshops. After participation in the workshops, some men may choose to become peer educators and others may choose to seek help. As more men participate both in the education workshops and in the training, it is hoped the numbers of men in the university student population who find sexually aggressive behaviour unacceptable will increase.

Uprooting Racism features timely discussions of affirmative action, immigration issues, institutional racism, humour, political correctness and the meaning of whiteness. It includes specific consideration of Latino/a Asian American, African American, Native American and Jewish issues.

·A copy of Eugene Smith's photo entitled 'The Walk to Paradise Garden.' (Two small children walking, hand in hand through a tunnel of underbrush) Needed for next issue.

·VANCOUVER contact person for the MNC