I find claims that Trump won thanks to sexism or misogyny very frustrating, for some of the reasons I outline here. How is it that one of the wealthiest, most successful and powerful women in the world is suddenly a victim? She lost on her merits. Women who believe there couldn’t be any reason other than a glass ceiling may consider some of these arguments.

Ultimately, there is sexism in declaring misogyny the reason for Clinton’s loss. If Hillary Clinton lost because she is a woman, could it not be said that her many prior wins were likewise because she is a woman? Where biological sex is the cause of failure, must it not also extend to being the cause of success? I’d say no to both.

It’s not too late to call your MPP about Bill 28 if you are concerned. There’s information here about how to do just that.

More to the point, it moves care of children into the domain of contract, and out of the realm of relationship. As such, Bill 28 codifies the commodification of children. We have been moving in this direction for a while, with the separation of having children from the sexual act, the introduction of a third party’s parts and the use of surrogates (whether or not they are paid). When parents had children in a relationship, and cared for them, too, the children knew where they came from. Bill 28 does not provide for a registration of who the biological parents actually are, leaving children with an existential crisis of never knowing where they came from as a matter of routine.

Et voila. A compilation of solid, scientific research shows in different areas, a good marriage helps your health.

Here’s my op-ed about this topic in the Vancouver Province.

Still, the sad reality is that in failing to acknowledge, publicize and act on this research, we are failing to give all people, married or unmarried, the care they deserve.

Furthermore, for a culture where marriage is often denigrated, advertising the good marriage advantage offers hope for those who are considering marriage alongside the already married.

I see it as coercion and wrote about this for the Financial Post, here.

Canadians might assume family policies aim to help families. Certainly, in the last election campaign, “helping middle class families” was a phrase laid on thick — like BBQ sauce at a summer rib fest.

But any government policy can just as easily be a way to help government. And there appear to be strong notes of this in a recent federal Department of Finance briefing note called “The impact of childcare support on women’s labour force participation.” The note reveals a lot about how and why any government, and specifically this Liberal government, aims to “help families.” It may not be in the way families think.

Me in the Financial Post today about gender quotas. Kathleen Wynne is introducing them for Ontario but in other parts of the world quotas have not achieved what they were supposed to:

A book about the Nordic experience released in May 2016 punctures those hopes and should be cause for reconsidering Ontario’s path. The Nordic Gender Equality Paradox by Nima Sanandaji assesses gender-equality programs and plans in Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Specifically in Norway, the evidence from studying quotas show neutral or negative results, both for women’s advancement and company performance — the two areas we are told will most obviously benefit.

What we learn from Sanandaji’s research is that the effects of quotas in Norway were far from positive. Norway introduced quotas requiring 40 per cent of board members of public companies to be women in 2003. This became mandatory for all companies in 2006. Of 500 companies affected, about 100 made “difficult but legal” changes in corporate structure to circumvent the new legislation. Share prices, he writes, dropped 3.5 per cent after the quota legislation was announced. More to the point, quotas had little to no effect on women’s pay, or women choosing to enter the business world.

21 days ago I forgot to cross-post this piece, which went up on National Newswatch. Not terribly popular to mention, but we do need more children and what’s more, Canadians say they’d like to have more.

A Nanos Research survey released June 1 by Cardus Family reveals that Canadians want to have more children, but feel there are too many deterrents.

Though no politician would ever come out and say that Canadians should be having more kids, the reality is that the workforce needs it, the tax base needs it and as it turns out, this recent survey says, it’s what Canadians want.

Peter Jon Mitchell and myself are co-authors. But this is just a picture of me.

Here’s the trailer to a new documentary about euthanasia in Belgium that will be released in June 2016.

[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbGK2tTvsI]

Some would call this fear mongering. I think rationally once you believe killing is treatment, and you see certain categories of people availing themselves of this treatment, you can’t help but shift in your thinking that all people who fall in those categories must want to die. Hence the friendly offer to kill the disabled child as is already the case when babies are born who look differently, who, to some “should have been aborted.”