ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Margaret Wente

Those rare consensus items

by 4 Comments

It’s all about context:

But wait a minute. Every previous generation in history would have happily traded places with us. So what if the Germans will have to sacrifice a week or two of paid vacation time, or if hairdressers in Greece will no longer be able to retire with a pension at the age of 50? Almost all their babies live.

Way back I remember writing a news item based on UN data showing how the world, not just the west, was improving on various outcomes and how we were all doing better than just a hundred years ago. Not saying there isn’t room for improvement but context is important.

Margaret Wente on maternal health

by Leave a Comment

Sad, but I can’t help but agree with this:

All this posturing, so breathlessly dissected in the media, is aimed at the home-town crowd, of course. None of it will ever have the slightest impact on any woman in India or Uganda. Nor will it influence the international policy approach to maternal health, which has been in place for years. This policy is to encourage contraception, and to support women’s access to safe abortions in those countries where it is legal. This has been Canada’s policy for years, and no doubt will remain so, despite the phony moral righteousness on all sides.

All the more reason to stand up and point out why abortion is not part of maternal health. This is all the more true in developing countries than here, which really does make the abortion-as-part-of-maternal-health debate one for the home-town crowd.

But what about the remaining seven cents?

by Leave a Comment

Another good article about the purported gender gap:

Take the gender wage gap. To arrive at 70.5 cents, the report compares full-time annual wages between men and women. What it doesn’t mention is that men work more hours in a year than women do. Once you adjust for that, the gap narrows to 84 cents. And when you adjust for work experience and women’s preference for jobs in the public sector and social services, the gap shrinks to 93 cents.

So my question about the remaining seven cents is only partially tongue in cheek. Does that spell discrimination? Or do women lowball their salary requirements? Just a question. (I once lowballed my salary expectations so significantly that within three months of starting I had asked for–and received–a ten per cent correction.)

I just don’t see sexism in Canada as par for the course. I do agree that the national discussion needs to shift:

The plight (and rights) of aboriginal women is a serious matter. The growing marriage gap between highly educated and less-educated women – and the hugely unequal life impact this has on their children – is another.

And of course, there’s that little question of women’s rights and abortion and the manner in which that is misrepresented in the public square…But I’m on that one.

And speaking of lead balloons

by 1 Comment

If Wente wants to talk lead balloons, let’s talk a McCain candidacy without Sarah Palin. The reality is that McCain is a weak candidate. The only inspiring thing he’s done is choose Sarah Palin as a running mate. Certainly, this is not the view of the media elite, of that I’m well aware.

It may take years to see who has the last laugh, because I don’t believe the McCain ticket will win. But they won’t lose because of Sarah, that’s for sure. As for all the femme fatale nonsense? Seems to me Wente’s fallen into the trap of thinking good looks and brains are mutually exclusive. And that only men like her. Oh dear.

Palin is a strong and attractive candidate. But how she looks is neither here nor there, save for columnists who use that as an excuse–when really, not so secretly, it’s her ideas they abhor.

________________________________

Rebecca adds: “Seems to me Wente’s fallen into the trap of thinking good looks and brains are mutually exclusive.”

If I thought in stereotypes as shallow as those Wente indulges in that column, I’d be tempted to expand upon Andrea’s observation.

Palin has lots of male fans, but the news has been for a month and a half how she has energized the Republican base and women. Wente isn’t dumb, so she must be pretty blinded by her obvious resentment to have missed this point.

Reading in new Charter rights

by Leave a Comment

The rights business in full bloom: Abortion, sexuality, shooting up? This is precisely, I’m sure, what the creators of our Charter intended.

But I like the main point of Wente’s article. We should indeed deliberately attach stigma to certain behaviours. If something is considered dishonourable, or unethical–why not just say that? And make it harder for people to participate in those activities–without using the Charter or the law? (Which may actually dilute morality in any case, “forcing” people to do something or not do something based on legality takes away the strength of character which calls us to do or not do for simple reasons of right and wrong.) I’m rambling now, though, and not sure where this all will conclude, so I’ll stop. Read Wente’s piece, it’s entirely coherent.

_____________________________

Tanya can ramble, too: The article notes

If safe shooting is a right, then shouldn’t every addict be entitled to it? Toronto’s more progressive politicians are hopeful. “We already have a lot of safe consumption sites in the city of Toronto,” Councillor Gord Perks pointed out. “They’re called bars.”

Great, is this gonna mean cigarette smokers will have a charter right to get their fix indoors, too? (They might argue that it isn’t safe to smoke outdoors during 40 below weather in just a cardigan or sport coat.) Did we just accomplish the opposite? I’m so confused.

Meta