ProWomanProLife

  • The Story
  • The Women
  • Notable Columns
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for gender equality

Coming soon–the equal footwear movement

May 26, 2009 by Andrea Mrozek 3 Comments

I must have missed the major exposé in yesterday’s paper about a lack of safety-approved feminine rubber boots. No matter, at least I caught this letter to the editor today, so as to make me aware of this grand injustice:

I was recently hired by a major corporation as an archeological field technician. My field work mainly involves surveying properties before development and requires that I wear Canadian Safety Association (CSA) footwear.

While I was able to find CSA approved work boots without a problem, I was shocked to learn that there is no such thing as CSA approved rubber boots for women. In fact, no manufacturer even produces them.

For the first time in my life I feel the pains of what my mother and grandmother fought for. Women in Canada have in fact left the office and have entered the manufacturing and environmental sectors where safety footwear is required. Not producing safety footwear for women is a sexist policy.

For the first time in her life she “feels the pains” of what her mother and grandmother fought for?

Don’t think we need better evidence than that for the fact that equality has been achieved.

_________________________

Brigitte would like to sympathize: I mean, come on! If dogs get feminine gear, why not girl archeological field technicians? Aren’t people, well, people too? (Buy a shirt…)

________________________

Andrea adds: I really hate to say this, but there’s probably more demand for pink camouflage jackets for dogs than there is for pink archeological dig boots.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: boots, gender equality

Thoughts on equality

September 9, 2008 by Véronique Bergeron 5 Comments

Naomi Lakritz wrote a funny piece published in yesterday’s Citizen  about gender equality.  I guess my marriage has arrived since I often find myself at the sending end of the cell phone call going “The peanut butter, you want it crunchy or smooth???” On the other hand I often write detailed grocery entries to my husband’s attention reading:  “2 cans of crab meat in tuna aisle, not in frozen fish section. If only frozen avail. 1 can of crab meat will do. Strawberries: preferably not rotten. ” And so on.

But to be honest, the fact that my husband and I work as a team to feed the kids, change the kids and drive the kids is of little comfort in a society that I still perceive as profoundly sexist. Yes, women have more opportunities than they used to and they can be mechanics or doctors or vice-presidential candidates just like the guys do. But unlike the guys, they can expect brutal scrutiny into the why, the how and the where of their career/family choices. And I am not talking only about Sarah Palin, who is a readily available example of this sad situation (on that topic, I found that column right on the money) .  When my husband took a sabbatical to look after our 5 month-old son while I went back to school full-time, I faced a barrage of criticism – including the silent treatment – from friends and acquaintances who couldn’t believe, in turn, that I would do this to my kids or ask this from my husband. The fact that he was looking forward to his “pat” leave did nothing to assuage their sense that I was somehow cheating my family or going against the natural order of things.  At the same time, one of my university professors was confiding that when her husband asked his employer for parental leave, his superior instead offered him a pay raise with the advice to hire a cleaning lady. Equality, yes but…

In the interest of full disclosure, I must say that I didn’t always approve of “working mothers” (by the way, I profoundly dislike that term. Working mothers. As opposed to what? Women of leisure? Since I joined the ranks of the “working mothers” not only do I get a lunch break but I can go pee when I need to, so there.) But I realised that the vehemence with which I criticized mothers who left their children in daycare was nothing more than the energy I needed to justify my own choice to stay at home to myself. It seems that this attitude has become pervasive, with each woman becoming an illustration of the way things should or shouldn’t be when in reality, individual choices are made for very personal reasons having nothing to do with a social statement. We will have reached full equality when women no longer bear the sole responsibility of making the world go round.

__________________________

Rebecca adds: What I’ve noticed about the stay-at-home/work-outside-the-home dilemma is how hard it is to predict, before the fact, what will work for you. I have friends who had serious careers in which they’d invested years and thousands of dollars of tuition, who decided, to their own surprise, to stay home, and at least one friend who was very snippy about daycare until she had a baby and thought she’d go nuts if she didn’t go back to work after the first year.  As for me – I thought when I was expecting my first that I’d put him in daycare at 12 weeks, the soonest they take them in Manitoba.  Then when he actually arrived, the thought made me sick to my stomach, so I was a full-time SAHM for a while.  Since then, I’ve somehow muddled into a compromise that involves working (largely) from home, grad school part time (night classes) and a part-time nanny whom I adore who takes care of the baby at our house, often when I’m working in a different room.  Most days, this seems like the best of all possible worlds – in the same place as my kids most of the time, intellectual gratification, slow but steady work on my degree, and not putting the baby in an institutional daycare, which I think is a different set of pros and cons than for toddlers.  Of course, some days it seems like I get all the cons – deadlines and pressure and seminar reading, while juggling kids and, as Véronique points out, no guarantee that I’ll have time to use the toilet, let alone eat a balanced meal.

So I’ve learned, at the end, that not only can you not know what’s right for other women, it can take a while to figure out what’s right for you and your kids.  And it doesn’t bother me that other women make different choices, or prefer different trade-offs than I do.

 

And speaking of Sarah, one of the things that delights me about her is that she is a feminine, fulfilled woman running for high political office.  It’s nothing new for women to be able to achieve what they want, despite NOW’s claims to the contrary.  We’ve had women astronauts (two of them Canadian), Secretary of State (Condi), head of major earth-shaking corporations (Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman come to mind) surgeons and generals.  Few of them, though, have families. 

 

Whole books have been written about how super high achieving women are much less likely to have children and solid marriages.  No, what’s new is for a young woman, with an adoring husband, a large (five children!) family, who is, let’s face it, stunning and could pass for a decade younger than she is, to be a serious contender for Vice-President of the USA.  Sarah Palin isn’t forced to pretend to be a man in drag, or even to make her candidacy one built around gender.  Canadian women of my generation were brought up being told that we could be whatever we wanted, and that was true, as far as it went.  Our children’s generation will see that little girls can grow up to be whatever they want, without giving up marriage, family and femininity.  You know, as has always been true for men (mutatis mutandis.)

 

Does that make me a feminist?

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: gender equality, Naomi Lakritz, Sarah Palin, working mothers

I am woman, watch me spend?

June 16, 2008 by Brigitte Pellerin Leave a Comment

OK. So I’m not a tax expert, despite having aced fiscal in law school. I pay professionals to do my taxes, in part because they do it way better than I could but also because life is too short to clutter up your brain with such regulations, unless you’re going to make a career out of it. While I’m willing to believe there are measures in the various tax systems that may be unfair to men or women because of their gender (the way, for instance, one-income families are disadvantaged compared to two-income families, as Jack Mintz explained here), I have a lot of trouble believing Canadian tax laws are so inherently unfair to women as to require special, broad-based and forceful action instead of a few tweaks here and there as needed.

So when I see newspaper articles like this one, I shake my little head in dismayed protest.

OTTAWA – Canadian women will be at a disadvantage until federal taxing and spending decisions are made to advance women’s equality, a parliamentary committee concludes in a new report.

The committee on the status of women unanimously recommends forcing the government’s hand on the issue by requiring the Finance Department to publish a separate analysis on how the measures contained in all future budgets will affect men and women.

A majority on the committee — all opposition MPs — also recommends passing legislation by next April to enshrine in law the gender-based budgeting obligations of federal departments and agencies; and the appointment by December, 2009, of a commissioner for gender equality, which would be modelled along the lines of the commissioner of official languages, to audit and analyze government behaviour.

Gender-based budgeting obligations? Does anybody even know what those might be? And, er, aren’t elections already supposed to be audits of government behaviour?

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: gender equality, tax system

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssby feather

Notable Columns

  • A pro-woman budget wouldn't tell me how to live my life
  • Bad medicine
  • Birth control pills have side effects
  • Canada Summer Jobs debacle–Can Trudeau call abortion a right?
  • Celebrate these Jubilee jailbirds
  • China has laws against sex selection. But not Canada. Why?
  • Family love is not a contract
  • Freedom to discuss the “choice”
  • Gender quotas don't help business or women
  • Ghomeshi case a wake-up call
  • Hidden cost of choice
  • Life at the heart of the matter
  • Life issues and the media
  • Need for rational abortion debate
  • New face of the abortion debate
  • People vs. kidneys
  • PET-P press release
  • Pro-life work is making me sick
  • Prolife doesn't mean anti-woman
  • Settle down or "lean in"
  • Sex education is all about values
  • Thank you, Camille Paglia
  • The new face of feminism
  • Today’s law worth discussing
  • When debate is shut down in Canada’s highest places
  • Whither feminism?

Categories

  • All Posts
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Charitable
  • Ethics
  • Featured Media
  • Featured Posts
  • Feminism
  • Free Expression
  • International
  • Motherhood
  • Other
  • Political
  • Pregnancy Care Centres
  • Reproductive Technologies

All Posts

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in