Archives for February 2009

The Ottawa transit strike is thankfully over. What is not over is bus-related debate: Today the discussion on my morning news station was whether or not it was right or wrong for Ottawa transit to say no to the atheist ads going around. In fact, it’s the substance of this CFRA Soundoff Poll. I just voted, in favour of free speech. (That side is losing, by a long shot.)

But while we’re at it–take a look at these ads, also, travelling about the city on Ottawa busses. I have not a sweet clue what they are trying to say. The Gods of Rock compel women to iron? The Gods of Rock will get you pregnant, seems to be the theme–and will make you morose. Either way, I find these ads somewhat offensive but also just plain dumb. I’m quite sure I’m not their target audience–the question remains: who is?

To summarize–in Ottawa atheists are out, pregnant ladies are in.

_______________________

Tanya adds: I almost hate to point out that the target audience for The Gods of Rock ad is men.  Not all men, of course…but some men.  And keep in mind, it has nothing to do with having children, but everything to do with getting them pregnant.  Very classy.

_______________________

Patricia says: I agree with Andrea that it is not up to OC Transpo to decide which issues merit public debate and by which means that debate should be generated. I would of course draw the line at public decency, although that seems a  laughable limit given the “Gods of Rock” ads or the ones for “dating” services that I see on the TTC here in the Big Smoke. Most times that I take my children on the TTC, I long for blindfolds to avoid the “what is that ad for, Mama?” questions. It does seem to me that if these ads are an acceptable way of generating public debate, so are these.

I would be curious to see how many of the atheist/humanist free speech advocates would be arguing for buses  to carry these ads, previously barred from the Hamilton transit system (see Andrea’s post). Or are they only interested in using provocative measures to encourage public debate about the non-existence of God? (Or am I being too cynical?)

We may see more articles like this one. (The women who don’t feel this way are too busy with families to write. The ones who do have just arrived as fully-fledged columnists/tenured profs/professional authors.)

Women are often the worst enemies of feminism because of our genetic make-up. We have only a finite time to be mothers and when that clock starts ticking we abandon our strength and jump into bed with whoever is left, forgetting talk of deadlines and PowerPoint presentations in favour of Mamas & Papas buggies and ovulation diaries.

Anyway, I’ll file this one away in the Gender is a Social Construct category. Why just last week when it was so rainy and cold, the men in my office agreed that they’d just rather be at home baking chocolate chip cookies with a cup of tea. Yes indeed, it was a touching moment of gender equity–and I would have shed a tear, but for the fact that real women don’t cry.

______________________

Brigitte adds: Oh dear. I feel sorry for her. But I must disagree with this:

I thought that men would love independent, strong women, but (in general) they don’t appear to. Men are programmed to like their women soft and feminine. It’s not their fault – it’s in the genes.

I do not believe being a mother means one can’t be a strong woman. I’m pretty sure being strong and independent-minded are two important requirements for the job.

______________________

Andrea adds: There’s quite a lot I disagree with in there. I didn’t have time to get into it. In short I do wish we all could roll with the punches a bit more…Who is to say she isn’t exactly where she is supposed to be? But then I’m one of these types who believes everyone’s life has intrinsic value irrespective of what one is doing.

_____________________

Rebecca adds: I think, as a belated Valentine’s Day present, I shall tell my husband how glad I am that I stumbled upon him when I abandoned my strength and jumped into bed with whoever was left.

More seriously: “My mother had children early and has brilliantly juggled a career as a filmmaker and parent. She was part of the generation that overlapped, that had feminist values but had children early. She hasn’t had the job opportunities of my generation, she had to make sacrifices and take lesser jobs to be at parents’ evenings. Choice and careers are vital, of course, but they shouldn’t be pursued relentlessly.”

Is it really news to anybody that, while you can pursue education and career advancement until you go senile, your odds of starting a family are highest when you’re young? I don’t know any women who want a career and a family who haven’t traded things off at one point or another. And to almost the same extent, this is true of men: you can have your children while you’re young, in which case you’ll have more energy and likelihood of fewer medical problems, but you’re putting yourself on the slower track, financially and professionally, at least for a few years; or you can do it when you’re older, when you’ll have more patience, more money, and a more established career, but it’s physically harder and less likely to happen.

The conceit that this is a problem for women only rests upon two ideas: first, that the work of raising children falls only on the mother, so men who start families young aren’t affected by the time kids require; and second, that men can wait until their 40s and then happily settle down with a fertile someone a generation younger. To my great relief, neither of these is true of the vast majority of men of my acquaintance.

Less seriously: she wrote a play inspired by friends who wanted to be just like Madonna? What part of being Madonna were they hoping to emulate? Cult membership? A series of failed relationships and custody fights? A gruesomely low level of body fat?

A jolt of adrenaline in this column by Michael Coren. Happy reading!

Someone forwarded me this Glamour article about women who have abortions. I sent it round to the PWPL team to see if someone had time to post about it—where it quickly became an internal email exchange about losing weight while you sleep. (Apparently some among us have always wanted to gain weight, while others (the majority) would gladly hand over extra pounds–while sleeping, or otherwise.)

 Ok, fine. So I’ll post about the article.

 My first thought: This is Glamour. A mish mash of articles on how to have better sex, “Valentine’s Dos and Donts” and yes, how to lose weight overnight mean I have a hard time taking their abortion article seriously. This is in depth—for Glamour. Is this a bit like saying you are a really serious swimmer—for a kangaroo?

My second thought: While they rely on rhetoric, they don’t actually use the usual euphemisms as much as I thought they would. The story opens on a scared, cold woman, her feet up in stirrups, her uterus being vacuumed out. Empowering? Or degrading, classified as empowering? Any woman who has had a pap smear knows this is uncomfortable stuff. So they open on an uncomfortable scene, and then make little effort to change that image.

The first woman they interview says this: “My boyfriend and I had been together for only one month and I got pregnant the first time we had unprotected sex. I didn’t even consider the possibility of keeping the child.” Those are stark words in print and anyone with even the haziest notions on personal responsibility should balk at what she’s just said. (This interview points to my suspicion that only the very most ardent supporter of “abortion rights” –ie. not “your average woman” would even volunteer to speak on the record for this article. I guess this based on the troubles—the phone call after phone call after phone call painstakingly placed when I was a reporter trying to get someone to comment on the record for issues far less controversial.)

This certainly is a bad article—they are still trapped in “abortion is a right, and it is empowering” land—even if they give no proof for that, no back stories on how the women’s lives improved. They actually fall back on the standard Don’t Think Too Much About This rhetoric of abortion supporters. They are trying to normalize abortion–but it’s an uphill battle, at best. Which always leaves me wondering–how is it that pro-lifers are on the losing side? I’ll know we’re winning when they open with the exact same lede–and move on to describe how many different and truly empowering options that woman could have chosen–how in a different time they actually thought this marked “progress” but we can see more clearly now–thank goodness.  

Which leaves me with only one question–I just woke up, and I weigh the same thing as yesterday (I just popped on the scale to check). If there’s a way to lose weight in my sleep, I would dearly love to know.

Father allows his two young daughters to freeze to death and he should not go to jail?

ROSE VALLEY, Sask. – Native elders are recommending that a Saskatchewan father serve a life sentence of spiritual guidance and healing instead of time behind bars for the freezing deaths of his two young girls.

Excuse me?