Today’s Globe has  a large spread on successful women. Nothing wrong with that. But I take issue with the tone. And I take issue with targets, which Sheelagh Whittaker, Director of Imperial Oil and Standard Life, advocates for in a taped message. You can listen here. (If you do, you’ll note her defence of targets isn’t very substantive and amounts to a desire for poor quality candidates everywhere. Furthermore, it’s quite condescending…”We’ll be equal when there as many incompetent women working as incompetent men”?? Really? You rose to the top on sentiments like that?)

I’ve been reading up on the female and male biological disposition in books like George Gilder’s Men and Marriage and other places too. And it has opened my eyes to the ways in which gender differences work. One thing is that men are naturally more aggressive and competitive than women. This is one of Gilder’s points and I happen to agree.

This means that in a competition in the workforce or in politics, men are, all things being otherwise equal, more likely to win. That doesn’t offend me. It just means Margaret Thatcher is that much more of a success. (And there are many other areas where women “win” since we are all so keen in our culture today on playing the gender warfare game. And we need things to be so very equal. One for the men, one for the women. It reminds me of spending time with my small and adorable nieces. Share! Your turn is over! That’s not yours! Thing is, they are both below the age of four. We really shouldn’t be doing this anymore as adults.)

The problem with targets is it is clear evidence that women cannot succeed without discriminatory policies (against men) working in their favour. I find that very patronizing, to use a word feminists wouldn’t like. This sort of discrimination causes unrest amongst women and men alike.

Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be working for Sheelagh anytime soon.

When a couple is choosing surrogacy, IVF, or even adoption, they are met with far more options that the average couple conceiving is faced with. From the start, there are contracts and decisions to be made. For example, how many embryos is too many embryos? What level of disability are you willing to accept? All of these things are decided prior to the beginning of the process, something not many of the biological parents I’ve known have discussed prior to a routine pregnancy.

The problem is, these early decisions don’t account for the chaos factors in life. There are divorces and breakups that lead to IVF terminations, there are surrogate mothers who change their minds, couples who change their minds, and there’s the moment when a baby is born that wells up powerful, unpredictable, emotions. It is difficult, in my opinion, to attempt to legislate such an unpredictable process, especially in relation to surrogacy.

The tragic case in B.C. has brought the issue back into the spotlight.

The case of a B.C. couple who hired a surrogate to have their baby, and then demanded the fetus be aborted after they learned it would likely be born with Down syndrome, is a disturbing reminder that the ethical and moral concerns around surrogacy arrangements have not been debated and properly dealt with. The story came to light after Dr. Ken Seethram, the doctor involved, raised it at a recent conference on fertility medicine held by the Canadian Society of Fertility and Andrology.

[…]

In the B.C. case, the couple wanted the surrogate to have an abortion, but she refused. Later, faced with the apparent prospect of having to raise the couple’s child herself, the surrogate had an abortion.

Obviously, the bottom line is that nobody should be coerced by contract into having an abortion against her will. Ethicists have suggested that if the case had gone to court, the child would have been awarded to its biological parents to raise.

[…]

What needs to be kept uppermost in mind while sorting through the moral and ethical ramifications of the complex scenarios in vitro fertilization has engendered, is that a human being — not a commodity or product — is the subject matter.

Forgive me for ruining the week’s feel-good story. But this guy needs a serious kick in the pants.

I’m sorry. Why do people insist on believing unbelievable things?

Senator Ruth has come out with a book in which, one must concede, she is talking to herself. The title? Speaking Truth to Power! But she is power these days, alongside all of her feminist friends. Now if I got a meeting with her, that might be called speaking truth to power. Though only over my cold, dead body would any book of mine be so entitled. Too cliché.

Table of contents and introduction, here.

And all smiles, too: (warning: contains graphic pictures without the prosthetic nose)

Here’s something that will surprise – nay, astound! – Véronique: Mothers who take time “off” to raise their kids tend to get lower wages when they do return to the workforce. We can discuss whether this is fair until we’re blue in the face, the fact remains that mothers who re-enter the workforce after a few years out of it aren’t in the same position, wage-wise, as women who never left.

But then, mothers have children. True, children tend not to help with one’s financial situation, at least not while they’re very young. But maybe there’s more to the work-life balance than a big paycheque?

A dialogue between Post writers, here. Interesting. Most interesting part is the excerpt below, for me, anyway, because it shows how people really can’t discuss the facts of abortion without labeling. This is as much true of pro-choicers as it is pro-lifers:

Libin: Ah, see, this is interesting: my response revolved around describing in fairly empirical terms the state of affairs in Canada as far as the status of a fetus goes, acknowledging the absence of regulation, acknowledging the lack of input a father can have on determining the fate of a pregnancy, acknowledging the political sensitivities around the issue, and suddenly I find myself being labeled by Scott as less pro-choice than he is. I expect this is precisely why we have the status quo that we do in Canada: because the issue is so fraught that we seem to reflexively start deconstructing any discussion of it by anyone to see where it falls in terms of easily understood concepts of pro-choice or anti-abortion.

First of all: who on earth is paying these researchers and why are they wasting their money on them?

Second: I knew their conclusion already. Why can’t someone pay me to tell everybody? I probably offer way better rates. Just sayin’ . . .

While the article is kind of all over the place (including defining love — at one moment it’s a flimsy emotion and paragraphs later it’s actually commitment and putting your partner above yourself? Make up your mind! Personally, I was raised with the latter definition, which is what works:

Lasting marriages combine commitment, passion: Researchers