All Posts – Page 393

“Women’s rights” in crisis

December 4, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 3 Comments

From time to time in this current political mess, someone will toss the phrase “women’s rights” into the mix. Apparently, in saying that government employees can’t go to Human Rights Tribunals over pay equity disputes, the Harper government is against women’s rights. I think that’s what it is about, anyway. Hard to tell. Why? Because those people bandying about the phrase don’t have a sweet clue either. They never explain, and I’ve not heard a reporter ask for or offer clarification. Fortunately, however, they don’t need a sweet clue. Because paying lip service to “women’s rights” is all they want to do.

Look, one thing I won’t do on this blog is pretend to represent all women. So let me say this for myself. I’d really love the government to stop funding “women’s rights.” I want Status of Women Canada to lose every tax dollar it gets. I’d love it if the “women’s caucus” stopped defending things like “gender-based analysis.” I will never even bother reading The Pink Book.

I don’t represent all women. So I find it fascinating when others speak up for–wait for it–me. Why–Ed Broadbent did so just the other morning on a local Ottawa CBC show. The Conservatives are against “women’s rights”, says he. But just what might those rights be? The right to unionized jobs? The right to be defended by him? So kind of him–I’ll invite him to tea and we can chat about a coalition of women’s defence. I’m sure he, maybe with Duceppe and Dion can swing it.

“Women’s rights” indeed. Are you buying it?

Duh, what’s going on?

December 4, 2008 by Brigitte Pellerin 4 Comments

Please forgive the recent hiatus. I was busy plotting birthday parties (there’s triple-chocolate cheesecake involved, is all I can say) and – oh yeah – getting some work done. You know. Work. The kind that helps pay the bills.

Anyway.

I haven’t had much time or energy to pay attention to the ongoing Parliament Hill saga. Apparently, there’s talk of a coalition to replace the Tories. Unless of course enough people wake up in time and realize Stephen Harper has managed, once again, to trap his hapless opponents. I don’t particularly like Mr. Harper. But I sure don’t believe he’d be dumb enough to get himself trapped by Messrs. Dion and Co.

Re-anyway. I am not particularly upset by any of this. For one thing, it’s not exactly surprising (not even the part where the Bloc gets to play a major supporting role; all parties have explored similar possibilities). And whether it happens or not, things aren’t likely to change. The only kind of government this country ever gets is the socially liberal, big spending kind. There isn’t one political party that speaks to me. Not one. But they all want to reach into my wallet to pay for things I don’t like – yes, very much including the Tories, who spend more these days than anybody ever did.

Seriously; is there any reason for someone like me to care one way or the other? I’m having real trouble thinking of any, but I’d like to know what our readers have to say.

__________________________

Andrea adds: I’m a “reader” of sorts. Read this blog religiously, actually. Mostly looking for typos and such, spiffing it up here and there… anyhoo. Never miss a chance to express your opinion, I say.

I care because while Harper didn’t prove to be small-c conservative at all, there’s not an economy out there that the NDP didn’t successfully tank. They have a proven track record, so to speak. That leaves me concerned for all kinds of things–but mostly for the poor, those living on the margins, those who lose their jobs and are left with nothing but an NDP-sponsored government handout. My second point: Harper caused this (I recently mused whether youthful inexperience is actually a hiring requirement in the PMO). But is the removal of government subsidies for parties–a firing offence? Not sure.

Why you should continue not to care–on the other hand. Because this will all come to an election sooner or later. Carry on with your cheesecake (sounds delicious). (And paying work. I’ve heard of that. Gotta go.)

________________________

Rebecca adds: I am also having trouble caring, which is unusual given my politics junkie status. Frankly I don’t like any of the players very much right now. Duceppe is the only one actually representing the interests of his constituency; I guess it’s our loss that Canada isn’t part of his constituency.

I’m chiefly curious to find out how much of this is part of a Rovian Grand Plan by Harper, and how much is wild flailing. A lawyer of whom I’m fond (they do exist) is of the opinion that “Harper speared himself, is frantically trying to pull out the harpoon, and may take constitutional democracy down with him.” I’ve also heard from people much more plugged in than I am that this has been in the offing since well before the October 14th election, which wouldn’t surprise me – as Brigitte says, all political parties scheme this way – but does mean that Harper’s real error was in giving the clowns an opening, not in committing some offense so grave that the three parties united to restore harmony, balance and Coke in the water fountains.

The larger lesson here, one of them anyway, is that minority governments are awful, and coalitions are worse. With the rise of the BQ and the Greens, they might be here to stay, and if (ftu ftu ftu) there’s another conservative schism, we’ll be permanently consigned to the ranks of unstable democracies that hold election every 18 months, like Israel and Italy.

Conversation with the previous generation

December 3, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski 3 Comments

Met a lovely 60-something woman last week and we ended up on the issue of woman’s rights on a global scale. I could never have planned to get on such a topic with someone I’d only just met. But there we were, talking, over tea, about the self-oppressive mindsets of women in other countries. Did it ever remind me of this article and this post!

I dared: North American women share in this phenomenon. We are plagued with an awful oppressive social mentality here.

She: What do you mean?

I: Well, unless a couple is actively trying to have a baby, any woman getting pregnant in this country is forced to consider having an abortion.

She (sincerely): A woman can’t be forced to have an abortion. It’s up to her! That’s what we fought for! Who forces her to have an abortion? (Perhaps she thought I’d finger the government for snatching girls out of their beds in the middle of the night to perform abortions on them.)

I: Usually, her mate. Many times, a parent. But it’s to be expected. We, the women of North America, expect to have to make that choice. All too many of us are pressured into having an abortion.

There was obviously far more to this conversation than that. What I learned? Women of that generation watched as their fellow women fought and picketed for easier access to abortion. It was a fight women were fighting passionately and finally won. It was women of the baby boom generation getting their big victory. It seemed to rank alongside victories of the suffragettes at the turn of last century. There’s a feeling of pride in that. There’s sense of camaraderie in that.

The hype is louder than the stories of women coerced into abortion. And coercion can be subtle. If a woman is scared her mate will leave her unless she has an abortion, she’s being coerced. If a woman is made to feel guilty, as though she’s choosing an unborn baby over the man she’s currently with, she’s being coerced. And it’s a silent suffering.

We as women in this country can’t admit to being forced into having an abortion. Abortion is supposed to be about a woman’s choice, and we are all supposed to be strong and independent. Admitting we were coerced is admitting weakness.

And if we went ahead with the pregnancy, we sure can’t tell our story: that’s the new baby’s father or grandparent. Sure makes for awkward family dinners, knowing daddy once wished you’d never be born.

I had dinner with the same lovely lady a few days later. She took me aside and said, pointing to her noggin, “you sure had my wheels turning for hours the other night.”

There’s a conversation to be had. We need to talk about abortion.

No suprises here

December 2, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

Two new studies out, both showing negative repercussions for women’s mental health after abortion. Both are done by reputable scientists and published in peer-reviewed journals. Here’s the press release for the Fergusson et al study. And here’s the Coleman et al study.

________________________

Tanya adds: The Fergusson study: “Women who have an abortion face a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems”

It then says, with its next breath: “The study found, the overall population effects of abortion on mental health are small.”

What? Nice.

Jean Vanier and making room for the unwanted

December 2, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 5 Comments

The Globe and Mail of all places had an interesting exchange on abortion between Ian Brown, who has written about his struggles with his son’s disabilities before, and Jean Vanier, who has also been awarded the Order of Canada for his work.

I am less interested in Ian Brown’s points, if only because he is basically asking a question of Jean Vanier: How could he keep his Order of Canada? (Brown expresses discomfort with abortion, especially the kind that would see his son killed in the womb but then says he can’t get away from a woman’s choice. I would merely suggest “choice” is not a value. “Faith, hope, love and choice, and the greatest of these is choice”? Um, not really.)

I read Vanier’s thoughts closely. I first read them with sadness and then, as I began to consider them more, with a sense of respect–finally, I came around and thought–this is a type of pro-life discourse that could bring even the uninterested Globe reader around. It is, in the end, pro-life discourse.

In his letter, Vanier says he is keeping his Order of Canada. He doesn’t say abortion is wrong, or evil. There’s also a fair amount of mundane “motherhood and apple pie” statements.

He gets at what make this country great:

It is important that we re-find this identity, that we encourage the young of our land (in whom we should have much hope) to discover the beauty of being Canadians with our own specific culture – peacemakers, people who give life, who become a sign that peace is possible in our world; to discover that our land is called to be a place of welcome not just for wealthy and competent people from other lands but also for refugees, for people from war-torn and poverty-stricken lands.” (emphasis mine)

In short, he is saying that Canada should be a place where the unwanted are welcome. (Even unwanted babies, one could add. )

He speaks of the sexual urge that “flows from a deep cry of loneliness.” There are few who sleep with someone for the cheap thrills, rather, it is because people are lonely. We all want to be known. We want companionship. And having a baby may be the furthest thing from our minds…

I really agree with him that loneliness is a terrible driver, both of sleeping with someone who doesn’t know you, not really, and then subsequently having an abortion. “And then too often,” he writes, “we see the shame, anger and despair of a woman who finds she is becoming a mother… her anguish makes her seek an abortion.”

I can see this.

“I do not want to say such a person in anguish is a ‘killer’. I would like to walk with her—maybe cry with her.”

Sure, and that’s the point of PWPL. Though I do think I’d like to prevent her from killing, while walking and crying with her. But still, I see his point.

Then he writes, “so we are not in front of something which is either ‘abortion’ or ‘not abortion,’ ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice.’ We are in front of something so much more complex.”

Pro-lifers are in this habit of saying abortion is not complicated, it is all so very simple. They are right, because abortion takes a life, and that is simple. And pro-choicers are in this habit of saying it is all very complex—and they are right, because that is how it feels to the people involved–there are many factors driving her to the clinic.

He then says:

Maybe the real question is: What is the meaning of our life? What does it mean to be human?”

Aha. And that is indeed a good question. I happen to believe if more women asked this, and more people responded appropriately, with encouragement, then we’d see more and more women empowered to “choose life” (understanding that we’d rather not choose killing as a routine course of action). (Too many women in the moment of a crisis are not asking big, philosophical questions, but rather the detailed short-term ones. Can I afford this? Can I finish school? Will he stick around? Do I want him to? etc.)

Anyway, Vanier’s life is compelling, compassionate, and if he doesn’t want to fall into all the ancient, unproductive and shrill rhetoric from both camps—then TRUST ME–I’m AOK with that.

On the notion of keeping the Order of Canada, he says the Order should go to those who “give and foster life.” Vanier sounds like a smart man—he must know that’s not what Morgentaler does. In that sense, he is keeping his Order of Canada perhaps so the Order is not devoid of those who do great things: give and foster life.

I don’t agree, I’d give mine back pronto. (If I had one.) But I see his point—Canada is a great country, and if we have such honours then they might as well be peopled by great men (and women). (Put your knickers back on, my feminist friends, it’s a turn of phrase).

Morgentaler should be the one to go. In due time, I believe he’ll be removed, as we hang our heads and reassess a time in Canadian history where we did not make room, we had no time–for those we chose to call “unwanted”.

Britain on top in more ways than just one

December 1, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

This article highlights how Britain is top of all western nations for sexual promiscuity. And that, they say, is a good thing for women’s rights and equality:

Britain’s ranking was ascribed to factors such as the decline of religious scruples about extramarital sex, the growth of equal pay and equal rights for women and a highly sexualised popular culture.

Just off the top of my head, there are other areas where Britain is on top, too: family breakdown, dropout rates, generational welfare dependency, high rates of single parenting, indebtedness and drug addictions. I believe their youth gang rates are also on the rise.

But I’m sure none of these things are connected. Way to go Britain. And thank goodness for “women’s rights,” as expressed by men (in this case, David Schmitt, a professor of psychology at Bradley University, Illinois) who slap wildly inaccurate interpretations on top of devastating research results.

Washington DC in pictures

December 1, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

ProWomanProLife advances to next round

November 30, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 4 Comments

Will wonders never cease? We’ve advanced to the final five in the Best New Blog category at the Canadian Blog Awards.

Thank you to all those who voted.

Now seems as good a time as any to come clean: I’m in this for the accolades. The recognition. (I don’t mean to show off, but I got free passes to see Bella. Yes, that’s right. Free.)

So if you’d like to vote for us again to become BEST new Blog, not just one of five–you can do so here.

Too drunk to walk

November 29, 2008 by Brigitte Pellerin 1 Comment

Too drunk to walk

Great news:

Drunk women who stagger about in high heels are to be protected – at public expense – from twisting their ankles.

They will be handed flip-flops to wear by police outside nightclubs as they wend their way home.

[…] the potential recipients seemed quite pleased yesterday at the prospect of a free pair of flops.

Danielle Bolton, 19, who was out in Torquay, said: ‘My heels hurt me at the end of the night so I tend to take them off.

‘It’s a hell of a lot easier to walk with flip-flops than high heels.’

Leanne Thomas, 21, added: ‘I go out clubbing at the harbourside most weekends and I usually walk home barefooted because my heels hurt. I think it’s a great idea.’

Ah, liberation.

[h/t Mark Steyn]

______________________________

Rebecca adds: In a country where people pull their own teeth with pliers rather than wait years for dental care (imagine going to a dentist where dental insurance is run like health insurance in Canada) and there is a waiting list to get into an ER waiting room, because in order to meet performance targets, patients aren’t triaged until admin knows they’ll be treated quickly, it’s good to know that chronic barflies will find it easier to stagger home. If it weren’t for government flip-flops they might develop some calluses which would ruin their round heels. A most excellent use of the British police.

Meta