Archive for January, 2010

12
Jan

Affirmative action needed in Canada’s Parliament?

By Sandy Crux 3 Comments
Categories: Canadian Politics and Media

According to a Globe and Mail editorial yesterday, affirmative action is needed to make the Canadian Parliament reflect “inclusivity and diversity.” Why? Because there are fewer women than men. See also Janet McFarlane’s column today: “Where are the female politicians?”

I can’t help wonder: Did it never occur to the Globe’s editorial board that perhaps the majority of women really don’t want to enter public life, that maybe men and women really are “different” in terms of life “choices?” And, isn’t that what feminism is supposed to be about? Choice!

As the National Post editorial says today, notions of affirmative action are far more undemocratic than prorogation:

“The Globe cares deeply about the state of Canada’s democracy. We know this because it recently ran a front-page editorial denouncing Stephen Harper for performing an ‘underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament.’ But when it comes to the MPs who actually populate that Parliament, Globe editorialists have no problem gerrymandering the place to suit their feminist veiwpoint. To hell with the people Canadian voters actually want to elect.”

Look, I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I believe both men and women should have equal opportunities and choices in life no matter what their gender, their sexual preference, their colour, race, religion or culture. But, at the end of the day, running for political office is a personal choice — a choice that is either accepted or rejected by the voters.

No appointments. No slam dunks. No gerrymandering. Being elected by the people should be the only type of affirmative action we need.

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch & Just Politics.

Sphere: Related Content

01
Jan

Lower than a Dog?

By Emilia Liz 3 Comments
Categories: Life and Times

As a great lover of Canis lupus (scientific Latin name for dog), being called lower than a dog isn’t necessarily an insult to me, but this story bears telling. My aunt lives on a farm with a number of animals, including several dogs. Two of them are a “couple,” a male and female dog whom I’ll call Sam (boy) and Sandy (girl). Apparently when my aunt fills the dogs’ bowl with their food, Sam always waits patiently until Sandy has had her share before he starts eating himself.

I was mentioning this to a co-worker, a very nice Black woman who knitted a sweater for my daughter when I became pregnant. “What a gentleman!” my colleague exclaimed about Sam.

So I felt compelled to tell her this story. I recounted how once when I went to dinner at the apartment of a Lebanese man I was dating I made the main meal (Italian pasta with homemade tomato sauce, I remember). Afterward, he told me with a smile to wash the dishes, which I proceeded to do.

Now I brought up the story first of all to illustrate how primitive and uncultured such behaviour was (inviting someone else to your home and having them do the dishes, especially when THEY have made the effort to prepare the meal) but mostly for the laughs, to show how a dog could actually be more of a gentleman than a human male. Well, she didn’t laugh; she got enraged. “I hope you didn’t do the dishes!” she said angrily. I looked a little sheepish and said yes, I did, which made her even more upset. At this point I started laughing, not at the story but at her and the fact she got so angry.

So all in all, going back to the Sam-Sandy story, is it fair to say this “gentleman” I was seeing was lower than a dog?

Sphere: Related Content

Further Research


RSSQuick Shots




Categories


Archives