Archive for August, 2007

23
Aug

Should Adoptive Parents Receive the same Benefits as Biological Parents?

A recent article in the Globe and Mail caught my eye: “What Makes a Mother?” by Patrick White. In it White describes the plight of Patti Tomasson, a British Columbia woman engaged in a legal battle to give adoptive parents the same workplace benefits as biological mothers. Right now the former enjoy 35 weeks of paid leave from their jobs after adopting a child. Birth mothers on the other hand qualify not only for the 35 weeks off but for an additional 15 weeks of maternity leave to deal with the impact of pregnancy and childbirth. This, according to Ms. Tomasson, the mother of two adopted daughters, constitutes discrimination against adoptive parents.

Nonetheless, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that Patti Tomasson is not entitled to maternity leave because she did not experience the physiological and psychological effects of pregnancy and childbirth (Ms. Tomasson plans to appeal the decision). Other courts handling similar cases have come to the same conclusion. Pregnant women may encounter health problems such as high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, or a low-lying placenta. In one instance a judge stated that reserving maternity benefits for biological mothers alone is necessary to protect women from pregnancy-related discrimination and from the days in which they were routinely dismissed from their jobs on becoming pregnant.

The ruling has, not surprisingly, angered adoption advocates. They say that while pregnant women may face medical complications as a result of their condition, in their own way adoptive mothers and fathers also undergo preparation for parenthood, including scrutiny by social workers, huge expenses for trips overseas if they adopt from abroad (especially now that there are few children available for adoption in Canada), and extra effort bonding with the child if he or she previously lived in an orphanage. In addition, like their biological counterparts adoptive mothers can suffer from postpartum depression.

So does the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling discriminate against adoptive parents, or would the opposite ruling (that is, granting adoptive parents the same amount of time off work as birth mothers) be discriminatory towards the latter? The law already makes distinctions between adoptive and biological parents in other areas. Any child born to me is presumed to be mine, unless I take steps to officially relinquish him or her for adoption. In contrast, if I find a newborn abandoned on the streets of Toronto, I do not have an automatic right to adopt him or her even if I have saved that baby’s life; I must go through the same legal procedures any other prospective adoptive parent would. Once finalized, though, adoption gives the parents (or parent) in question the same rights and responsibilities as a birth mother or father. If I adopt children in the future, I will have the obligation to provide for their health and education, for example, as well as the ability to raise them in the religion of my choice or in no religion at all – just as I do now with my biological daughter. Since parental workplace benefits come into effect after the adoption has been finalized, it does seem discriminatory to deny adoptive parents the same length of time off work as biological mothers. Some might counter that pregnancy poses particular medical challenges that adoption does not. However, every pregnancy is different, and some women breeze through it with no complications at all. The only physical problem I encountered during mine was one slight bout of morning sickness (ironically, on the day I discovered I was expecting). Of course conditions like gestational diabetes or preeclampsia – pregnancy-induced hypertension – could keep even the most dedicated employee from work. But perhaps it makes more sense to grant women who experience such difficulties time off as part of a sick leave than to institute a blanket maternity leave that not all pregnant employees will need.

A related issue has to do with whether the federal government should require companies to provide their employees with any paid parental leave at all, let alone one amounting to almost a full year (in the case of biological mothers). One writer in the comments section following the article noted that women who own their businesses or work under contract do not get any paid time off if they have babies, either by birth or adoption. Other people object to employers being forced to accommodate what is essentially a lifestyle choice, that is, to have children, although even if parental leave were not mandatory many workplaces would probably offer it in order to attract or retain employees. These are relevant questions, for which I don’t have all the answers. But as it stands now, these benefits do exist, and it therefore is wrong for adoptive and biological parents to be treated differently in this respect.

13
Aug

Tisk Tisk, Eric

In his August 12 column, Toronto Sun writer Eric Margolis critiqued the New York based candidates for the 2008 presidential election, citing that neither appeal universally to the New York public. His criticism of Rudy Giuliani’s ill-temper and family issues was well reasoned and proceeding well … then he tossed in this literary jewel –

Besides, who can trust an Italian who finds it painful to smile? Italians were put on this earth to make life more enjoyable for all of us, not to wage jihad against Islam.

Cute. I wonder how many Italians will write in protest?

Eric Margolis + Happy Italians

Mr. Margolis is easily in my top 5 for columnists, but occasionally some indefensible quips slide through his columns. Being the son of a journalist stationed in the Middle East, Margolis is fairly sensitive to Muslim issues and rather critical of the Neo-Cons who wage war in the Muslim world. That sensitivity doesn’t seem to apply to much to others – especially not Israelis or Africans. Nonetheless, his columns tend to offer a sober critique of modern conservative thought, while his tales of places visited and people met are highly entertaining. Agenda or none, he’s a good read.

06
Aug

Caribana 2007 – The Video




Direct Link @ YouTube

Direct Link @ Blip TV

Direct Link @ DivX.com (w/ Full Quality Download!)

North America’s largest street festival turned 40 this year. Over 1 million revelers from Canada, the USA and the Caribbean jammed into Toronto’s lakefront for the annual Caribana parade.The vibe was positive and festive as always, with people of all sizes, shapes and cultures jumping up to the Soca sounds pulsing from speaker-laden floats. The skimpy outfits provided eye candy to both sexes, though every body type and body age was wining to the beats.

See Also: Caribana 2007 – The Pictures

06
Aug

Breastfeeding in the Bible

One Sunday last June I set out to go to church after a month-long absence. My plan was foiled, however, when my baby daughter demanded her morning feed. I was disappointed, but I joked with my mother that surely God would understand; after all, His only Son was breastfed. Indeed, the image of “Maria lactans” (Latin for “Mary of the milk”) is a common motif in Renaissance art: numerous sculptors, painters and other artists depicted the Virgin Mary nursing the Baby Jesus. Mary’s lactational performance is mentioned in Luke 11:27, in which a woman shouts out to Jesus, “Blessed [are] the breasts at which you nursed.”

References to breastfeeding are sprinkled throughout the Bible. This is hardly surprising, as the ancient Hebrews were a very family-oriented society. For example, the popular expression “out of the mouths of babes” comes from Psalm 8:2’s “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings [“suckling” meaning a child who sucks at his or her mother’s breast] hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.” Breastfeeding provided benefits to both women and their babies. At a time when standards of hygiene and medicine were not what they are today, mother’s milk protected infants from potentially fatal infections. Nursing also acted as a natural form of birth control by suppressing menstruation, allowing women to space the births of their children and avoid the stress of constant pregnancy. The contraceptive potential of lactation is illustrated in the following passage: “Now when she [the prophet Hosea’s wife Gomer] had weaned Lo-ru-ha-mah, she conceived, and bore a son” (Hosea 1:8).

One might ask how long children in Biblical times were breastfed. While the Bible contains no specific instructions in this regard, the Muslim holy book the Koran, which was written in the same part of the world as the Bible was, advises mothers to nurse their babies for two years (interestingly, the same timeframe recommended today by the World Health Organization). So this is probably the minimum amount of time Hebrew youngsters remained at the breast. In fact, evidence from the Bible itself suggests at least some women nursed their children beyond two years. For instance, in the Apocryphal book of Maccabees a Jewish mother reminds her son that she has “carried you in my womb for nine months and nursed you for three years.” Similarly, as soon as the prophet Samuel is weaned by his mother Hannah, he is sent to serve with the priest Eli in the temple, which tells us the boy was at least past the pre-verbal toddler stage.
The Bible also speaks of the practice of wet nursing, whereby a woman was paid to breastfeed a baby not born to her. Sometimes rich women would hire wet nurses rather than feed their children themselves. For example, Isaac’s wife Rebecca had a nurse named Deborah who was buried under an oak tree (Genesis 35:8). Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth became lame, according to II Samuel 4:4, after his nurse dropped him while fleeing at the news of Jonathan’s and his father Saul’s deaths. Nonetheless, it appears that most Hebrew women, even wealthy ones like Abraham’s wife Sarah, breastfed their babies themselves.

Two interesting stories involving breastfeeding appear at the beginning of the Old Testament. In Exodus, the infant Moses is found by the Pharaoh’s daughter in an ark of bulrushes. To nurse him she hires a Hebrew woman, who unknown to the Pharaoh’s daughter happens to be the child’s biological mother. The second story is featured in the Book of Ruth. A Jewish woman, Naomi, experiences the loss of her two adult sons, both of whom die childless. One of her daughters-in-law, the Moabite Ruth, remarries a relative of her late husband and has a son named Obed. Because Naomi has left no biological descendants, however, she adopts Obed as her own; the neighbours even declare, “There is a son born to Naomi.” To cement the mother-child bond, Naomi “[takes] the child and [lays] it in her bosom and [becomes] nurse unto it.”

Now one might wonder how Naomi could nurse a baby when she had presumably borne her last child decades earlier. This occurred through a process called relactation, whereby a woman’s breast can be stimulated by a child’s sucking to produce milk again years after giving birth. In some poor countries today grandmothers may nurse a grandchild if the baby’s mother dies. Even in the modern United States , feminist sociologist Pauline Bart – who is Jewish herself – writes of having milk reappear in her breasts after suckling her granddaughter.

Biblical authors used the breast and its product, milk, to symbolize nurturance and abundance. Isaiah is probably the writer who employs these metaphors the most. For instance, in Isaiah 60:16 the Lord promises that the holy city of Jerusalem will “drink the milk of nations and be nursed at royal breasts” as a sign of its glory. All who love the city will “nurse and be satisfied at her comforting breasts [and] drink deeply and delight in her overflowing abundance” (Isaiah 66:11). Isaiah compares the relationship between God and His people to that between a nursing mother and her baby. In his own words, “can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!” (Isaiah 49: 15). St. Paul also speaks of breastfeeding metaphorically. He tells the Thessalonians that “we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children” (1 Thessalonians 2:7). Even secular scientists are recognizing the significance of breastfeeding to the mother-infant relationship. Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes in his book Adam’s Curse talks about the “unconditional love and security” that nursing represents for children.

After Biblical times the popularity and prevalence of breastfeeding went through ups and downs. In the twentieth century West baby formula was once promoted as better and more “scientific” than breast milk. Westerners eventually rediscovered the benefits of nursing, and breastfeeding rates started rising again in the 1970s. For some women, this rediscovery had a spiritual dimension. Kathleen Mitchell, co-author of the book Cesarean Birth: A Couple’s Guide for Decision and Preparation, writes that though she bottle-fed her first two children, after her third birth she decided to use her “God-given ability to breastfeed my baby.” It’s an ability I’ve discovered on having my own baby and hope to use in the next two years.

04
Aug

Caribana 2007 – The Pictures

North America’s largest street festival turned 40 this year. Over 1 million revelers from Canada, the USA and the Caribbean jammed into Toronto’s lakefront for the annual Caribana parade.

(click pictures to enlarge)

caribana2007_1.JPG

The vibe was positive and festive as always, with people of all sizes, shapes and cultures jumping up to the Soca sounds pulsing from speaker-laden floats. The skimpy outfits provided eye candy to both sexes, though every body type and body age was wining to the beats.

Caribana 2007

2007 must not have been a great year for music at the master Trinidad Carnival, as a good % of the music played on the floats were featured on the 2006 playlist. Regardless, the crowd enthusiastically jumped up to aging classics like Destra Garcia’s “Max it Up” and Russell Cadogan’s “Big Bottom Gal”.

Caribana 2007

The only negative –and it will always be a problem- was the traffic. Attempting to catch a streetcar on Queen or Bathurst street was a fruitless exercise – our group managed to walk east along Queen Street from Bathurst to University without seeing a single street car. Driving in the periphery of the CNE was vehicular suicide but didn’t stop thousands of drivers from slinking around at 10km/h, fruitlessly honking the horn at passing revelers.

Caribana 2007

Since half the Caribana-related Google searches that reach this site concern crime and violence, let me tell you that I didn’t see any at all. The police were standing around -mostly at ease- giving directions more often than tickets.

Caribana 2007

As usual, security was good but not flawless, allowing a handful of aggressive onlookers to breach the security fence and get some up-close pictures (*ahem*). Enjoy these photos (shot by someone in my entourage) and keep checking the site for the upcoming YouTube video.

Caribana 2007

Caribana 2007

Also See: Caribana 2007 – The Video

03
Aug

Should Religious Schools Receive Government Funding?

Last week Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory announced that if he were elected Premier he would extend government funding to non-Catholic religious schools in the province. These would include Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and non-Catholic Christian institutions. His announcement, as was to be expected, generated quite a bit of controversy. On one hand, some individuals, particularly those affiliated with the schools in question, applauded his move. It is not right, they said, that one religious group – Catholics – receives government financing for its schools while the rest do not. Others agreed with this reasoning, with a twist: in a secular state, religion should be kept out of government institutions such as schools, and therefore no faith community is entitled to taxpayer support. This is the position taken by among others Toronto’s Eye weekly magazine and by 58% of respondents to a recent poll. The third view amounts to a sort of “The way things are are the way things are” (that quote is from the character of the cow in the movie Babe) approach. It might not be fair that Catholics get full funding for their schools and members of other faiths do not, but this is the law of the land.

A clarification: the “law of the land” is actually the British North America Act. When it was written in 1867, it provided for the establishment of two educational systems in Ontario: the Catholic system and the Protestant system. At the time Protestants and Catholics were virtually the only religious groups in the province, so it was thought that this division would cover every student. The writers of the Act probably did not envision the future mass immigration of members of other faiths to Canada (or the increase in individuals not affiliated with any). Eventually the Protestant system became simply the non-Catholic, or public, system, without ties to any religion. One might thus argue that like laws forbidding people to let their horses copulate in public or requiring that a married woman obtain her husband’s permission to open a bank account, the British North America Act, or at least the portion granting Catholics their own school system, is now obsolete.

The question of school funding affects me both as a parent (albeit of a child too young to attend school) and as a practising Christian. My position on the matter is similar to that of Eye magazine: religious educational institutions, Catholic or non-Catholic, should not receive state funding. (Note: sometimes the drive to eradicate so-called “religion” from the public sphere borders on the inane; witness for example the kerfuffle over the Christmas tree in the courtroom.) The responsibility of raising my daughter in a faith falls to me as her mother. If I want to have formal religious education as an adjunct to her upbringing, I should shell out the money for the appropriate school from my own pocket, not the public purse.

On the other hand, some criticism of full funding for all religious schools strikes me as alarmist. It has been asserted that Tory’s move will isolate children from members of religions other than their own and lead to profound divisions in Canadian society. That possibility seems a bit far-fetched. A number of Catholic schools, for instance, have a considerable percentage of non-Catholic and even non-Christian students enrolled in them. Even working under the assumption that religious schools would accept only followers of their particular denomination, the fact is in today’s world children will be exposed to people of other faiths outside of school, such as on sports teams, in clubs, at part-time jobs, etcetera. Finally, not all parents, even those who go to a church or other place of worship, would choose to have their children attend a religious school. I for one would prefer that my daughter learn about her faith from me, her other family members and our church rather than from a school.

I am not sure that Tory’s position on funding of religious schools will make or break my vote in the next provincial election (I tend to alternate between supporting the Conservatives and the Liberals); there are plenty of other issues to consider when casting my ballot. Some have accused John Tory of using religious schools as a means of courting the ethnic vote. That may or may not be true, but given that over half of Ontarians do not appear to support his idea, he might rethink his plan.

01
Aug

June Cleaver Junkies

It seems like only yesterday that the Andrea Yates child murders started to fade from the collective consciousness. Recall Mrs. Yates, who sequentially drowned her five children in the family bathtub before notifying her husband, was originally convicted for first-degree murder but had the verdict overturned and was committed to a mental institution due to severe depression. Today’s AP wire is carrying a similar story for another disgruntled Texas housewife:

A stay-at-home mother in an affluent Dallas suburb fatally shot her husband and two children as they slept before killing herself, police said.
…
Detectives were reviewing a suicide note left in the house, where Andrea Roberts killed her husband, Michael Lewis Roberts, and children, Micayla, 11, and Dylan, 7, police said. Each had a single gunshot wound to the head.

The article contains quotes from neighbors who have only positive things to say about Andrea Roberts and her family:

“They seemed like the ideal couple, the ideal mom and dad,” said Warren, who has lived next to the Roberts for about seven years. “Their kids were their lives.”
…
“She would always volunteer and step up,” Carson said. “One of her biggest flaws was she couldn’t say no.”

While details are still forthcoming, there is a very good chance that Ms Roberts will be publicly diagnosed with some kind of severe depression or mental illness. Later revelations will probably detail extensive use of drugs to treat those illnesses, along with a litany of small warning signs behind Roberts’ June Cleaver facade. In other words, it will be a repeat of the Andrea Yates saga, albeit with a more tragic (or satisfying, if you’re more revenge-minded) ending.

What makes a mother depressed enough to kill her children? Perhaps the question should be “what’s making so many mothers so depressed in the first place?” After all, as traditionalists would have us believe, a woman’s place is in the home. Baking cookies and changing dirty diapers are supposed to provide complete spiritual, physical and mental fulfillment. Feminists and career-women are said to be in denial about their natural role and will eventually “come around”.

These traditional beliefs seem to sustain via the belief that women were happy with sex roles before the rise of radical feminism in the 1960’s. In particular, the 1950’s is held up as a paragon of social order. However, as reported in a recent Toronto Star article, the traditional roles were maintained using very unnatural means:

Citizens there excitedly turned out to watch the unearthing of a 50-year-old time capsule – a 1957 Plymouth Belvedere loaded with artifacts of its era. Among them, a “typical” woman’s purse which contained bobby pins, gum, loose change, a compact, cigarettes, an unpaid parking ticket … and a bottle of tranquillizers.
…
The fact that the town officials considered a purse containing tranquillizers – as well as a photo of a 20-year-old bride – as representative of womanhood in 1957 reveals much about the tenor of the times.
…
“What was that culture saying about women?” says Toronto therapist Barbara Everett, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Mental Health Association (Ontario). “That this was as common as lipstick, that they needed to be drugged.”
…
Valium was followed by tricyclic antidepressants such as Elavil. Then came the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, Paxil, etc.) and a host of sedatives (Halcion) and anti-anxiety drugs (Ativan, Xanax). Some are combos – such as Effexor – and are advertised in women’s magazines as aids for overcoming stressful social situations.

The article goes on to state that women are still outrank men by more than 2:1 for prescriptions of antidepressants and tranquilizers. The Canadian Mental Health Association is reporting that post-partum depression –a major source of these prescriptions- affects up to 80% of new mothers (source: aforementioned article).

Context aside, most people would agree that a life sustained by powerful sedatives and psychotropic drugs isn’t a natural life at all. Some of us might even call such people junkies. Can we therefore continue to claim that every woman’s destiny is invariably in the home?

It’s advisable to go on a vacation, to get rid of the dull monotonous life style which makes some women vulnerable to drug addiction. If you’re on tight budget, even then you can enjoy an exclusive maui vacation, with your family. Just log on to official website of US vacation club international, where you’ll get your hands on cheap cancun vacation packages. Other vacation sales packages include year-around fun activities for your entire family trip.




Further Research


RSSQuick Shots




Categories


Archives