The Shotgun Blog
« Steve Jobs and Madonna, some Western Standard housekeeping matters | Main | Marc Emery: Senate stalls passage of mandatory minimum sentencing legislation »
Monday, June 22, 2009
“Equal” is a woman’s right, not a Starbucks sweetener: Alberta NDP
Alberta NDP MLA Rachel Notley demanded an immediate apology from Tory MLA Doug Elniski today for what she is calling sexist comments recently posted on his blog.
On June 13, Edmonton-Calder MLA Doug Elniski posted the following advice to “girls” on his blog (which was deleted today):
“Men are attracted to smiles, so smile and don’t give me that ‘treated equal’ stuff, if you want equal it comes in little packages at Starbucks.”
He also wrote:
“There is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get shit for something and has no idea what.”
On the same day, Elniski posted the following Twitter comment:
“bikini car wash 82 129 ave girls look cold (…)”
Notley said she was saddened by the comments, which suggest a lack of respect for women and a failure to understand women’s ongoing struggle for true equality.
“What does it say about Alberta when a government MLA is telling young girls that their understanding of equality can be found in diet sweetener at Starbucks?” Notley asked.
“Equal is a woman’s right, not a Starbucks sweetener. Doug Elniski owes Albertans an apology.”
(Picture: Rachel Notley)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on June 22, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
What a dick! How old is this guy? She's saddened? She should be fighting mad.
BTW, how is she related to Grant Notley?
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-22 10:13:33 PM
You would never hear a comment like that from Paul Hinman. He's a complete gentleman.
I'd like to see Danielle Smith take a strip off this guy.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-06-22 10:29:32 PM
She is Grant Notely's daughter and Elniski needs to amend his sense of humour.
Posted by: DML | 2009-06-22 11:26:06 PM
Equal is not a woman's right, it's a fantasy, exploded time and again. Even in the fashion industry where women outnumber men at a ratio of ~13:1, male designers disproportionately garner the most prestigious awards. When does this PC crap end?
Posted by: DJ | 2009-06-22 11:27:47 PM
If women want respect, they can earn it. They can start by really acting like equals instead of demanding special treatment on the job, in the courts, and in social settings. Women have a long way to go before they're pulling their share of the dangerous, unpleasant work, their share of penitentiary time for the same offence, and their share of the violence (women are victimized at only about a third the rate men are).
Granted, men have a ways to go before they're doing their share of the housework and child-rearing, but they are improving in that regard, and the truth is, parents should decide who will do what BEFORE the decision to have children is made.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-22 11:33:41 PM
Oh for frick sake, equality means being allowed to participate in a bikini car wash, at to be oogled, equality has nothing to do with consensual sexual objectification,
Posted by: Pete | 2009-06-22 11:35:46 PM
Granted, men have a ways to go before they're doing their share of the housework and child-rearing...
~Shane Matthews
Women didn't ask men whether they'd do more housework or child-rearing before they decided to get on the Liberation kick. They said women need men like a fish needs a bicycle.
I don't see how men doing housework or child-rearing follows from that.
As a group, it's hard to respect women when they're killing their own babies and supporting the killing of babies. If they want respect, then they should respect babies.
Posted by: Speller | 2009-06-22 11:45:52 PM
Speller- Is it fair to say you respect the ones who don't kill their babies?
I make sexist remarks all the time. What made me angry was the obvious stupidity of the guy to do it "in public". He's an idiot.
I was living in Grande Prairie when Grant Notley was killed. The mountie who survived the crash trained at the same gym as I did. I didn't realize his daughter had followed in his footsteps. Goes to show how much provincial politics means to most Albertans. I have a feeling that's about to change.
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-23 12:01:40 AM
Re: Shane Matthews: If women want respect, they can earn it. They can start by really acting like equals instead of demanding special treatment on the job, in the courts, and in social settings.
Mr Matthews, women don't have to earn equal respect--like men, we have a right to it as human beings. And please keep in mind that Mr Elniski's comments were directed to junior high students: teenagers. These young women should not have to perform dangerous labour or be victimized by the penal system before they are allowed to expect that their personal and professional merit will be evaluated on the same standard as that applied to their male peers, and not on their pretty smile. Are you really suggesting that we send 14-year-old girls to prison or to dangerous job sites to "earn" your respect?
Posted by: R. Babcock | 2009-06-23 6:44:50 AM
Shane hates women. Must be some junior high social trauma or something.
But he is great manbait and easy to taunt cuz he flies off the handle so easily. He alone accounts for 40% of the most dumbass things said on Western Standard.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-06-23 9:07:25 AM
"Mr Matthews, women don't have to earn equal respect--like men, we have a right to it as human beings."
No, you don't. That's the trouble with people--they talk far too much about entitlement, and not nearly enough about duty. You will get exactly as much respect from me, neither more nor less, as I think your conduct merits. Your initial impression is a poor one.
"And please keep in mind that Mr Elniski's comments were directed to junior high students: teenagers."
He's not telling them anything they don't already know. Women are quick to use their charms and wiles if they can benefit from it. This behaviour stems both from their own vanity and their unshakeable belief in the mindless, ape-like, sex-obsessed mentality of men. They believe they're morally superior, too, but that's another subject.
These young women should not have to perform dangerous labour or be victimized by the penal system before they are allowed to expect that their personal and professional merit will be evaluated on the same standard as that applied to their male peers, and not on their pretty smile."
They don't want to be evaluated on the same standard, respondent-who-won't-give-their-full-name-and-therefore-most-likely-female. They sue to have physical performance requirements reduced so they can get jobs like fireman or combat marine, calling the standards discriminatory. A rifle and rucksack or charged fire hose weigh the same no matter who carries them, but why let logic interfere with equality? Don't tell me what you shouldn't have to do. Instead tell me what you're prepared to do. Here we are with the "rights" trip again. And people who stand on their rights command little respect.
"Are you really suggesting that we send 14-year-old girls to prison or to dangerous job sites to "earn" your respect?"
I'm suggesting women need to stop demanding special treatment, expecting to have the rights of equality without the responsibilities. They invade men-only clubs, yet insist on their right to female-only ones. They demand equal pay, but don't do equal work--women who don't have children make virtually the same as men in the same position, while those who do demand extensive time off with full or partial pay for no work for up to a year. They blame men for the destruction of the environment, but six times as much retail space is devoted to female consumption of the products of that despoliation as is devoted to male consumption, even though women buy small items like purses and shoes and men buy large items like trucks, boats, and airplanes. They demand laws to shield their identity from their accusers in court and that their emotional response to being a victim of crime ought to be a factor in sentencing. They call me violent beasts, yet flush inconvenient unborn to the tune of one abortion for every three live births and actually kill their children more often than their fathers do, then blame hormones.
So yes, they've a ways to go before I'll consider them equals. And getting up on soapboxes and demanding respect instead of trying to actually earn it will take them in the wrong direction.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 9:30:10 AM
I agree with epsilon and R. Babcock. Shane is a moron.
All human beings are entitled to respect until they do something that warrants the loss of it. I am a woman and I notice a lot of women who expect men to be gentlemen, yet do nothing themselves to warrant being treated like a lady. There are double-standards everywhere, so it requires some effort from everyone to change what 'equality' means.
"Respect your elders" is a favourite of mine. If an older person makes some idiotic comment like Mr Elniski, or says something racist or offensive, I do not respect them. Respect has NOTHING to do with age, race, creed, or sex and people need to just act on the Golden Rule: Treat others as you want to be treated. Hold the door for people. Say please and thank you. And let's all hope that someday, Mr Elniski has a daughter. Then maybe he can fully grasp why he himself is someone who deserves no respect.
Posted by: Dogma | 2009-06-23 9:35:19 AM
Epsi trolls from thread to thread baiting men as revenge for the men who have rejected her in life. She admits baiting and does it unashamedly, without even attempting to actually debate the topic. She is an ugly, stupid, petty, vindictive, loathsome, scurrilous, nasty, petulant, childish, vexatious, quarrelsome, reprehensible, insidious, scrofulous little hag, and a common scold in the bargain. If she'd straddle a broom, she'd look perfectly natural. Maybe we should make up a ducking stool.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 9:36:55 AM
That should say, "they call MEN violent beasts." My bad.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 9:39:48 AM
To Shane:
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however backwards and damaging it is. We need to start moving forward, knowing that everyone is entitled to at least basic human rights. You want guilty until proven innocent. I say, and our laws agree with me, that it should be innocent until proven guilty. What's your problem with women as equals in society anyway?
Posted by: ErkD | 2009-06-23 9:53:06 AM
"I agree with epsilon and R. Babcock. Shane is a moron."
What you agree or do not agree with does not constitute an argument. A moron is someone who cannot reason. Your arguments against what I have said are all based on emotion, not logic. Which women are noted for, by the way. I've got news for you, honey--emotion is NOT the equal of logic. Any tadpole has feelings. The ability to reason is unique to humans. Your emoting lowers, not raises, the bar.
"All human beings are entitled to respect until they do something that warrants the loss of it."
No, they are entitled to BASIC COURTESY. Respect has to be earned. By everyone.
"I am a woman and I notice a lot of women who expect men to be gentlemen, yet do nothing themselves to warrant being treated like a lady. There are double-standards everywhere, so it requires some effort from everyone to change what 'equality' means."
No. Equality is what it is, and it's a remarkably simple concept that is completely incompatible with double standards, double standards mostly maintained by women, for women. It up to the people to change to meet the standard, not up to the standard to change to meet the people.
""Respect your elders" is a favourite of mine. If an older person makes some idiotic comment like Mr Elniski, or says something racist or offensive, I do not respect them. Respect has NOTHING to do with age, race, creed, or sex and people need to just act on the Golden Rule: Treat others as you want to be treated. Hold the door for people. Say please and thank you."
Again, this is courtesy, not respect. Respect is a complex emotion consisting of admiration, appreciation, and deferential regard. It is in many ways similar to love. It is by definition not the default state of a stranger, or even necessarily of one whom someone knows well. It can be had only through the earning of it. It can never be demanded.
"And let's all hope that someday, Mr Elniski has a daughter. Then maybe he can fully grasp why he himself is someone who deserves no respect."
Why? Because he said something you disagree with? You have already had the immaturity, the insolence, the arrogance and the petulance to call me a name because I voiced an opinion contrary to your own. You can disagree with someone, and still respect them. You can be at WAR with someone, and still respect them, if they conduct themselves with courage, gallantry, chivalry, honour, and dedication. Many a battlefield decoration has been awarded based in whole or in part on a letter of praise from the commander of the opposing force.
You, on the other hand, figure you ought to get respect just for being you. With you, it's all about the relationship; no relationship, no respect. Dream on, my friend. And while you're dreaming, look up the word "respect" in the dictionary. You'll find it means something quite different than what you think it means.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 9:56:51 AM
News flash for Ms. Notley: Women would have to give up a great deal to get equality in our society.
-almost 50% more women then men are enroled in Canadian universities;
-95% of occupational deaths occur to me - an employment opportunity no feminist has ever agitated to equalize;
-men earn more than women on average (because they work-for-pay harder), but due to an entrenched voluntary and coerced transfer system (taxation and spending programs, spousal support, etc.), women end up consuming a substantially disproportionate share of societal resources;
-85% of custody disputes lead to primary residential care for mothers;
-men are prosecuted in 90% or more of no-injury domestic assault cases - by far the most common type of domestic assault - even though all credible sociological research indicates that women are more likely to initiate a minor assault on men than vice versa;
-the male life expectancy is 5-7 years less than the female life expectancy, and yet men have to pay out-of-pocket for things like prostate cancer tests while women get annual breast cancer tests (with reminders in the mail) for free;
-etc., etc., etc.
By the way, it is a myth that married men do substantially less unpaid work around the home or with the kids than women. Sociologist Edward Kruk has done a lot of research in this area, and recently published a massive study which is downloadable from the FIRA website (Father's Involvement Research Association (?) at the University of Guelph).
The privileged and favoured Ms. Notley doesn't have any conception of what gender equality is or would look like. She shouldn't be lecturing anyone else on the subject.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-06-23 10:04:25 AM
Good Points Grant. Still the comments are in very poor taste for anyone, let alone an MLA.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-23 10:09:11 AM
"You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however backwards and damaging it is."
In what way is it backward, and in what way damaging? This is not a reasoned argument or even a fact; it's mere opinion. Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one and most often they're full of crap. Next.
"We need to start moving forward, knowing that everyone is entitled to at least basic human rights."
"Moving forward" is a deliberately vague and empty phrase that generally means whatever the speaker wants it to mean (see progress). For that matter, so is the phrase "human rights," as our human rights tribunals so graphically demonstrate. If the right to never be offended is a basic human right, then I'm glad to say I'm against basic human rights, or at least that one.
"You want guilty until proven innocent. I say, and our laws agree with me, that it should be innocent until proven guilty."
Not having earned the respect of a new acquaintance for the simple fact that neither of you knows anything about the other is not synonymous with a finding of criminal guilt. Like Dogma, you are conflating respect with courtesy. Courtesy to others is a considered a duty in polite society. Respect can only be earned.
"What's your problem with women as equals in society anyway?"
My problem with it is that women have a problem with it. They don't want equality; they want special treatment. Even Dogma admits this. Until women give up those innumerable little perks they have traditionally enjoyed, they will not be equal in fact, no matter what I or you or anyone else thinks on the matter. Truth is subject to reality, not belief. For many, that is the biggest hurdle of all.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 10:13:49 AM
"Good Points Grant. Still the comments are in very poor taste for anyone, let alone an MLA."
I won't argue with that. I will argue with anyone who says that men would have taken as much umbrage had a female MLA directed sexist remarks at boys. Men are not nearly as into the victimhood shtick.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 10:16:15 AM
Shane... you are a very angry person. I do apologize for calling you a name, however you seem to be quite comfortable doing the same to whomever disagrees with you. You called me insolent, arrogant, petulant, emotional, etc.
In the interest of effective debate, I took your advice and looked up 'Respect' in the dictionary. One such definition says: 'the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect'. Courtesy is sort of a prerequisite for respect, then. As you said, respect is very near to love. I treat my husband with respect and courtesy because he deserves it and because we wouldn't have gotten married otherwise.
As for namecalling? Well, as a woman, I don't think you're terribly respectful toward my gender. You make sweeping generalizations about us being 'emotional' and illogical and even went on a namecalling tirade on epsilon: "She is an ugly, stupid, petty, vindictive, loathsome, scurrilous, nasty, petulant, childish, vexatious, quarrelsome, reprehensible, insidious, scrofulous little hag, and a common scold in the bargain. If she'd straddle a broom, she'd look perfectly natural. Maybe we should make up a ducking stool." You should refrain from raging against people if you're going to call someone out for saying 'moron.'
I agree with you on some of your points about equality. I don't think that women should get special treatment for situations in which men are treated differently. However, it goes both ways. I have a lot of issues with the feminist movement because I think it is damaging to everyone. It's demonizing men and they don't deserve it. I have a lot of fantastic men in my life from my Dad to my husband and my brothers. As I said, women who expect respect just for having lady parts is ridiculous. However, I feel that things like maternity leave are warranted whether you think so or not. Until you can squeeze out your own baby and breastfeed it, you can't really argue effectively about that point. Paternity leave is also available for fathers, though not for as long, which I think is unfair. Your comments about women flushing their unwanted children away are also a little general. Please take into consideration that not all women are like that. I personally could never do something so heinous.
I don't think I deserve respect for being me or for being a woman. I think I deserve respect when I treat others well and do my best to ensure that I give a good example to other people without being a jerk about it.
That said, the comment that incited this discussion was: “Men are attracted to smiles, so smile and don’t give me that ‘treated equal’ stuff, if you want equal it comes in little packages at Starbucks.” I don't think I should have to smile at someone who doesn't deserve my enthusiasm and vice-versa. My mission in life is not to attract a man. It wasn't when I was single, either. That is what I take issue with.
Posted by: Dogma | 2009-06-23 10:29:31 AM
I thought his comments were hilarious. When I heard the story on the news I broke out laughing. Should he have shared those views publicly in a non-comedic forum, no. That was stupid.
Men and women are different. Our roles should reflect that difference. We are equal in value as it regards to life. Equal in society? NO. That is a dream. A dream where the rules are changed to reflect the desires of the ruling class.
It's becoming a woman's world. That, my friends will be a terrifying society for a normal man to live. The man who does not follow the emasculating societal standards of the coming time will be judged harshly and punished.
Posted by: Nate | 2009-06-23 10:34:42 AM
Dogma,
1. Whether or not I am angry is irrelevant to the discussion; facts and arguments were presented, which if you would prevail must be rebutted with superior arguments also supported by facts. You were rude, so I responded in kind. Moreover, if you will read carefully, you will find that I did not call you a name; I described your behaviour. There is a difference, you know.
2. Not necessarily. A person can be brave, honourable, accomplished, or any number of respect-worthy things but still be an ass in person. Courtesy makes it easier to respect someone, true; conversely it is hard to respect a rude person. But courtesy is NOT respect, nor is it a prerequisite, certainly not the only one.
3. No. You treat your husband with respect and courtesy because YOU THINK he deserves it. Fine as far as it goes, but again, reality is not based on belief. This is not meant to impugn your husband; only to illustrate a point. You can respect someone without marrying them.
4. First, what you think does not matter. (What I think does not matter either; it matters only what I can prove, and I've done a lot more proving than you, so far.) And as I've said before, women in general don't have my respect because they a) haven't earned it, and more to the point, b) don't think they should have to.
5. Epsilon called names, for not the first time; I but returned the favour. And both you and Epsi were the first to call names. What does that say about your level of maturity?
6. I am well aware that there a lot of chauvinists out there; to a degree, I am one of them, though a benign one. But I am always willing to give each individual a chance based on their personal merits, even if my experiences with their people as a whole have been less than positive. Only a fool turns away talent because of the package it comes in.
7. Having issues with something is not the same as saying it's wrong. Again, this is not about you or your feelings. Your sentiment, however, broadly reflects the one I put forward. Yet: "moron"?
8. Up to now, you've shown total ignorance as to what an effective argument even looks like. Emoting is not arguing. It is precisely this sort of "we're special; you can't possibly understand" line of thinking that torpedoes women's claims of equality. The process of childbirth in itself is not relevant to deciding whether or not women warrant equal pay for less work.
9. I agree paternity leave for fathers should be the same.
10. Access to abortion is considered synonymous with women's emancipation and equality, and a majority of women support it. More women support abortion, and have even had abortions, than men have committed murder. More women hit men than men hit women. Yet men have the greater reputation for violence.
11. If you deserve respect when you treat others well, is the reverse also true? That is, if you are rude, then you won't mind if the other party eats his way through a boxcar of Ex-Lax and then positions himself over your plate?
12. Take all the issue with Elsinki's remarks you like. Just don't call names when someone else raises points you later admit were valid. Don't take your distaste for Elsinki out on me. I'll return the favour if you do, and frankly, I'm better at it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 11:01:51 AM
I'm glad someone is standing up for women in this province. Too bad it had to come from the NDP. It seems no one in the AB PCs could be bothered to show basic respect to a large proportion of their voter base. Maybe that's why the women's vote skews left.
Women aren't asking for lollypops and ponies.
We're asking for men to not beat us, for us to not get stuck desperately trying to raise two children alone and with no money when the man runs off, and we're asking that, if we can do the jobs as well as men, for us to get paid the same as men. That's all. That's equality.
But "equality" is a concept that seems foreign to a lot of people here.
Posted by: Kirstin | 2009-06-23 11:04:30 AM
Here we go again with the idea that a whole group is entitled not to be offended. To argue for equally and demand special treatment is ridiculous. As for sexist comments, what this fellow wrote is absolutely nothing in comparison to what men are expected to put up with. It is totally fashionable in the entertainment industry to put men down, especially fathers and husbands. This is typical PC rubbish.
These thin-skinned women would do better to concern themselves with honour killings and forced marriages of women.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-06-23 11:08:48 AM
Kirstin- I wouldn't necessarily agree that Ms Notley is standing up for women. It just happens to be her turn to throw balls, at the dunk tank.
I watched her on CTV news this morning, and she managed to rattle off several other groups which are also perpetually offended. Poor old Dan Matheson had never heard of a couple of the organizations, and asked her to explain the acronyms.
Ms Notleys father was also a perpetual troublemaker. He never accomplished anything politically. Dying was his greatest career move.
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-23 11:18:26 AM
It's not a women's world, it's still man's world. We don't get equal pay. It's difficult to get child care (it's expensive and there are few available spaces). Women are also still severely under-represented in public office, which is why it's so important to have someone like Rachel in the leg. And men say stupid shit like this.
Men get respect without earning it all the time, and make more $$ etc etc, because men still have primary place in our society. So it makes no sense to say women need to "earn" respect before they deserve equality, because men don't have to earn it.
It needs to change and I really feel no empathy for the men bellyaching about it here--you don't lose anything by supporting equality for women; women just gain everything you already have. You gain too, because you gain strong partners in life and society.
But yes, it's going to take men actually doing their fair share of things like housework and childcare, and all of us working together toward equality as a goal, for it to happen. It also takes men realizing that women are just as valuable, productive, and capable, often more so, and supporting equality themselves.
I was upset about the MLA's comments, but I'm saddened more by the comments here. We truly have a long way to go.
BTW, it's not being a victim to stand up for ourselves and hold a sexist jerk like the MLA accountable for his actions. It's necessary, and courageous.
Fortunately, yes society is slowly changing thanks to those women who lead the way and keep pushing despite the ignorance displayed by Elniski and many of the men here. We women need to keep pushing.
And incidentally, solely blaming women for having abortions ignores that there was a man involved in getting each woman pregnant in the first place - a man who is not the one who has to make that agonizing decision, and will never have to sacrifice 9 months to be pregnant (sick, stretch marks, health risks) or a lifetime to be a parent, especially if he screws off or refuses to take any responsibility. It's hypocritical to be so concerned about the lives of babies without holding men accountable for caring for them too. It's not just the women's job, and many women choose abortions in part because they can't do it themselves at that point in their lives (due to lack of $$ or whatever). And most women who have abortions have children at a different point in their life; because they're legal, those women can get abortions without risking sterility or death, and still be able to have babies before or after they make that extremely difficult choice. No one is suggesting making abortion illegal again anyway, not even the ruling Cons, so it's a moot point when talking about equality aside from the fact that legal abortion is an important thing for women to have and we do have it now and are keeping it.
Posted by: Susan Thompson | 2009-06-23 11:22:13 AM
dp - That's a below-the-belt comment about Notley's father. There are many valid criticisms of what she said, but speaking ill of the dead
And besides, isn't a politician's job to rattle the cage every once in a while? To question the country's, province's, or the city's direction? I think that's what we pay them for and what they should be accountable for.
I disagree with Notley's lumping-in of all those other groups. I think it weakens her position, and frankly, I don't agree with a lot of those groups. Now that's something we can discuss.
But to bash someone's dead father? Really?
Posted by: Kirstin | 2009-06-23 11:27:06 AM
Several of you have argued vehemently against special privileges being accorded to women, which is utterly understandable. I am not arguing that women are entitled to special privilges in the workplace or elsewhere--simply that equality on the basis of gender (or race, for that matter) is a basic human right. By teaching young girls that smiling and being attractive is the best way to succeed, we are conveying a message of inequality: that men need to work for success, while women just need to be visually pleasing to men. Why would anyone--male or female--want to argue in favour of this kind of bias?
Posted by: R. Babcock | 2009-06-23 11:33:30 AM
Her husband's name is Lou Arab. Maybe she should be wearing a veil.
www.albertandp.ca/Your_MLA.cfm
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-06-23 11:38:15 AM
"I'm glad someone is standing up for women in this province. Too bad it had to come from the NDP. It seems no one in the AB PCs could be bothered to show basic respect to a large proportion of their voter base. Maybe that's why the women's vote skews left."
The women's vote skews left because they vote for people who promise special treatment for identifiable groups; i.e., identity politics, which are the trademark of the Left. Women consider themselves a minority even though they outnumber men. How delusional and self-pitying is that?
"Women aren't asking for lollypops and ponies."
No. They are asking for lowered employment standards, lower sentences for the same offence (but still equal pay for equal work), lower standards of proof in criminal proceedings, presumption of innate moral superiority, the right to intrude, but not be intruded upon, that emotion be considered at least the equal of logic, and last but certainly not least, men's manhood on a plate. Did I miss anything?
"We're asking for men to not beat us, for us to not get stuck desperately trying to raise two children alone and with no money when the man runs off, and we're asking that, if we can do the jobs as well as men, for us to get paid the same as men. That's all. That's equality."
Statistics show that women beat men more often than men beat women; that women are more often injured is easily explained by the fact that they hit people more durable and more powerful than they in the expectation they won't be served in kind because they're women. Having children is a tango that it takes two to dance, and judging from divorce statistics, women are only too happy to raise two kids alone, provided they can squeeze money out of their former partners. As for equal pay for equal work, the fact is that seniority still plays a part in determining salary, and women usually have significantly less of it.
"But 'equality' is a concept that seems foreign to a lot of people here."
Equality means you carry as much as is carried for you. As has been rather exhaustively demonstrated, women aren't there yet.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 11:42:10 AM
Shane,
You make some very eloquent arguments on the distinction between courtesy and respect, amongst others.
e.g. 1
"Again, this is courtesy, not respect. Respect is a complex emotion consisting of admiration, appreciation, and deferential regard. It is in many ways similar to love. It is by definition not the default state of a stranger, or even necessarily of one whom someone knows well. It can be had only through the earning of it. It can never be demanded."
e.g. 2
"That's the trouble with people--they talk far too much about entitlement, and not nearly enough about duty. You will get exactly as much respect from me, neither more nor less, as I think your conduct merits."
It is, however, unfortunate that these arguments lose the audience by your personal attack against others such as that on epsilon. Why do these detract from your arguments?
Well it comes down to respect and credibility. Comments that demonstrate a lack of judgment tarnish those comments that are more considered and insightful.
Essentially when you make poor comments all your comments are generalized to be poor comments.
This would be similar to your technique of generalizing all women. From example A (below), it would seem that you suggest that your comment applies to all women - and therein is the fallacy of your entire argument - women span the entire spectrum (similar to men). Some earn and deserve respect while others do not. I suspect that Dogma is one that generally earns the respect of those around her (again not enough history to know). Women like men deserved to be treated equally based on the actions of the individual and nothing more. Sound familiar (see e.g. 2 above)?
e.g.A
"If women want respect, they can earn it. They can start by really acting like equals instead of demanding special treatment on the job, in the courts, and in social settings. Women have a long way to go before they're pulling their share of the dangerous, unpleasant work, their share of penitentiary time for the same offence, and their share of the violence (women are victimized at only about a third the rate men are)."
I digress from my early point of why you have demonstrated a lack of judgment calling into question all of your arguments/comments.
Applying my logic above it would suggest I should take each comment/argument individually and give its due merit. Then why don't I? Because comments and arguments are best taken in context - in this case the context is the above article and the comments of the participants. Therefore, I would argue broad (societal generalization e.g. some women don't deserve respect, therefore all women don't deserve respect) don't hold, narrow (individual generalizations e.g. you have shown poor judgment, therefore your judgment can't be trusted) do.
How did you show poor judgment? The poor judgment is not your judgment of epsilon's character. I do not know epsilon and her comments in the above dialogue are insufficient to move beyond first impressions. Your poor judgment is that you felt that a public chat site was the appropriate place to make such a personal and largely unwarranted attack - it lacked basic courtesy, which you yourself have agreed is a basic human right. Furthermore, it is libel. Disagree? Ask a lawyer, I did.
Unfortunately, epsilon has made no contribution of value to this message board while very effectively minimized the merit of your arguments. Funnily enough, this all comes down to respect. It is hard to gain, and easy to lose.
Posted by: David | 2009-06-23 12:02:52 PM
Susan,
1. It's a man's world because it takes planning, ambition, courage, risk-taking, and justice to make a world. Women score lower on those crucial points than men. They will always score lower on those crucial points than men. This is not to minimize women's contribution; but the bulk of it is in other areas, dictated both by biology and by personal preference. It sucks for the few of you who want more, yet aren't prepared to embrace the qualities noted above, but them's the breaks.
2. Men NEVER get respect without earning it, Susan. As I've noted, men can be opponents, even in war, and yet respect one another, if their conduct warrants it. Men truly appreciate merit above personal feelings, far more than women do. Two men can disagree, step out into the parking lot and pummel each other into a stupor, pick each other up off the pavement, go arm in arm back into the bar, and laugh the whole thing off over a few pints. Two women could not do this. (Try it.)
3. No, it doesn't need to change, because the underlying dynamics have not changed. Only *some* women's desires have changed, and those desires, by themselves, are no reason for others to change. Most women manage to provide strong companionship, support, and contribute their bit to society, and be justly proud of it, without feminists screaming at them for not demanding more, preferably at men's expense.
4. No. You want a different outcome than the current one even with no change in input, at least not from the women. Your problem is you think the whole problem is with men, and that if only the men can be brought round to your way of thinking, all will be well with the world. It's a self-centred, egotistical, narcissistic model of thinking that does you no credit.
5. Yes, you indeed have a long way to go, but you won't get there by sitting dejectedly by the roadside and trying to thumb a lift. Those women who do figure this out tend to do very well indeed, often better than the embittered feminists who stay mad--and broke.
6. Accountable for what? He made a tasteless remark. That's not a capital offence. Women have been telling men how useless they are since they had tongues to say it with; why is what's sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?
7. What will you do if men decide they've had enough and decide to push back? You cannot beat them on the battlefield. You cannot beat them in the political arena. You cannot beat them in the academic arena. Not if their passion is a match for yours. And you cannot cower men indefinitely through emotional abuse alone, because eventually they get wise to that. It's not the nineties anymore, Susan; the sensitive nineties male is largely a thing of the past. And the female-dominated human-rights tribunals and divorce courts are showing us what the female idea of justice looks like. It's not pretty. And increasingly, it's on the defensive.
8a. The fact that a man was involved in getting the woman pregnant would be a defence if the man had a say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated; he doesn't. It would also be a defence if the woman had no say in the act of intercourse itself; she does (and any accusation of rape is the man's to disprove). From the moment of conception, he has no rights, only responsibilities. If the woman wants to kill the baby, he can't stop her; if she wants to keep it, he is liable for support.
8b. "Stretch marks"? Are you really so shallow, so vain, so utterly morally rudderless and murderously selfish, as to offer this as an excuse for offing a helpless fellow human being before he's even taken his first breath? If you don't want to be pregnant, use the pill. Use condoms. Use diaphragms. Use the sympto-thermal method. There is no excuse for accidental pregnancy, barring rape. None. Zero. Ever.
8c. If the woman doesn't want to keep the child, there's always adoption. Health care is free in Canada so it needn't cost her much of anything, and I'm okay with charging the birth father fifty percent for such items as mat clothes and the like. Of course, the mother gets to change her mind even after she signs the contract, a right of default afforded to few, if any, men in their business dealings. Truly a woman's word is worth less; she prefers it that way.
8d. If abortion is worth keeping legal, then so is wife-beating. Both serve the brutally practical purpose of saving the perpetrator a little inconvenience; in the case of the aborter, a few months of feeling ungainly; in the case of the wife-beater, a rational discussion with his wife (only the wife usually lives). To argue that a baby's life is worth nothing just because the mother finds it inconvenient demonstrates how selfish and utterly depraved many "modern" women have become. Abortion is still legal only for the same reason that Jim Crow laws persisted so long in the Deep South: because important swing voters refused to be rational about them.
This is why I refuse to accept you as my equal, Susan. Because, in the end, it's all about you. I respect no one, woman or man, for whom the gratification of self comes before everything. It is enough that I let them live.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 12:12:51 PM
"That's a below-the-belt comment about Notley's father. There are many valid criticisms of what she said, but speaking ill of the dead."
That is an English tradition, not a Canadian one. The fact that a person has died does not excuse his actions in life from criticism. It's not like dp took a crap on his headstone. To that, even I would object--and so would he, probably.
"And besides, isn't a politician's job to rattle the cage every once in a while? To question the country's, province's, or the city's direction? I think that's what we pay them for and what they should be accountable for."
This is a rebel mode of thinking that betrays a sixties mindset. The job of a politician is to craft public policy. It is the incessant heckling and childish cage-rattling that have turned Question Period into a national embarrassment.
That said, politicians act the way they do because they know what most voters do not: Politics is a game of emotion, and most voters vote with their hearts, not their heads.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 12:16:17 PM
Shane -
1. My 'behavior' that you so object to is your opinion of it. Which, as you said doesn't matter, so while I may think that I was arguing constructively (except the moron comment, which I acknowledged was off-base), and you think I was being an emotional, arrogant, etc person, it doesn't matter.
2. I believe that courtesy is a basis for respect. Not that you care what I think at all, but that is how I see it.
3. I treat my husband with respect and courtesy because he deserves it. If you were to go on the qualities of a decent human being, he surpasses on all counts. If you are able to quantify the qualities of my entire gender as truth, I am able to say this with conviction: I never said you had to marry someone just because you respect them, just that I would not have gotten married if I did NOT respect my husband.
4. As you've said, respect has to be earned. If I were to generalize, I would say that VERY few people have earned respect or think they should have to. Gender aside, I would say that a lot of disrespect comes from an enormous sense of self-entitlement that most people have.
5. 'Returning the favour' for namecalling does not make you superior, just as imperfectly human as the rest of us.
6. If you're going to say that women in general do not have your respect, you can't very well argue that you are 'always willing to give each individual a chance based on their personal merits'. You are judging before you know a person, which we all do to some extent.
7. I do think that the feminist movement is wrong in some regards. The 'man-hating' that goes on is reprehensible, but some of the leaps that have been made are important steps. Like women getting the right to vote, for starters.
8. My comments on the process of childbirth have nothing to do with 'deciding whether or not women warrant equal pay for less work.' They just have to do with the fact that women have some genetic differences from men that require special consideration. As do issues like what Grant brought up pertaining to men: workplace injuries, dangerous work and spousal support (which, incidentally, I think is BS in come situations).
9. Common ground can, in fact, be respectfully settled upon!
10. I agree that to some extent 'access to abortion is considered synonymous with women's emancipation and equality,' but I disagree that the 'majority of women support it.' or that 'more women... have even had abortions, than men have committed murder.' I think genocide needs to be taken into account, here. Also, if you have proof that more women hit men than men hit women, I would like to see it. I know there is an issue with women hitting men that goes largely unreported because we are 'smaller and don't hit as hard' or some other such BS, but it would be interesting to know some numbers, if you have 'em.
11. The reverse is also true, but I can't say that I wouldn't take issue with someone taking a dump on my dinner :)
12. I will take issue with his comments, and I wasn't meaning to take anything out on you. I took issue with some of your comments, hence our discussion here. I do try to see the merit in any point well made, so if I'm agreeing with you later, it's only because you said something or explained something I see merit in.
Also, amen to Alain. Television husbands and fathers are ALWAYS portrayed as completely inept, while their long-suffering wives roll their eyes at their stupidity and penchant for duct tape. It's awful. The PC movement has made it impossible to say just about anything 'correctly.' However, honour killings and forced marriages are definitely more valid points to the global equality of women than the comments made by the MP.
For the sake of the Shanes though - there are terrible things done to boys as well. Think child soldiers and tribal initiations.
Posted by: Dogma | 2009-06-23 12:16:21 PM
David,
I am well aware that politics is a game of emotion, and that if a person makes a single remark that others consider to be off colour, they are apt to dismiss all other arguments from that person based on their dislike for him, not because there's anything wrong with the arguments themselves. That's called argumentum ad hominem: "argument against the person," and politicians like Notley are quick to take advantage of it.
I, however, am not running for public office, nor do I entertain the conceit that I will actually change anyone's mind. That's not what we're here for. We offer our opinions and, in some cases, our reasoning. If someone like you presents a thoughtful and well-reasoned argument, I will respond in kind, but I will try to make my argument better. If someone insults me, I will insult them back a thousandfold, and dynamite the roof down over their heads, and sweep the rubble into the sea, to be drowned forever beneath countless shimmering fathoms, never to see the light of day again.
We all have our vices; as vices go, being a mirror with a power booster is rather harmless. This is a competition, after all.
P.S. If I had said, "Epsi sells her body," that would be actionable, because it would be damaging to her reputation and would present actual conduct by herself as a statement of fact. Insults, which constitute opinions only, are not generally legally actionable, especially when so over the top as to be utterly unbelievable. If no one believes or even has the reasonable potential to believe a statement, it cannot be argued to have done any harm, at least not to the person it was addressed at. And if, by some impossibly arcane quirk of law, I *am* liable, so is she, and Dogma, too, for that matter. Shall we all go to court, form a circular firing squad, and see who lives?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 12:29:06 PM
Shane- Indeed, headstones are off limits. So are any other memorials, but a politician's record of service is not off limits, even after death. The comment about the career move was a bit off the cuff, but it's the truth. Dying young always gives people a boost in ratings.
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-23 12:37:48 PM
Ok lets get back to the issue at hand. How many people think that Alberta NDP MLA Rachel Notley could win a wet t-shirt contest????
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-06-23 12:41:32 PM
Stig- As long as she smiles, anything is possible.
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-23 12:52:29 PM
Susan,
1. Your behaviour that I objected to fits the dictionary definition of those adjectives. If we assume for a moment that the dictionary is correct, then what I said was true: a fact, not opinion.
2. You're right; I don't care what you think. I don't expect you to care what I think, either. That's why I make an effort to PROVE my statements. You, however, don't see the need.
3. So you say. I will reserve judgement on your husband's attributes until I've met the man. I have learned, however, to not trust declaratory statements too far, especially when made by a demonstrably emotional individual.
4. No, that's not true; there are a lot of respectable people out there. It's true that there also a lot of selfish people out there, too. Respectable people are often less noticeable because they don't attract as much attention to themselves.
5. I never said it made me superior. That said, returning an insult is less of a discourtesy than offering an unprovoked one, and no court in this country would disagree.
6. Incorrect. Willingness to acknowledge general trends does not make one unwilling to acknowledge blips in the data. That is a separate trait, dishonesty. If you accuse me of that, you'll be the first. Many folks often wish I was more willing to lie a little. :-)
7. Women received the right to vote long before the modern feminist movement. The modern feminist movement has little in common with women's contemporary needs or aspirations and, increasingly, with women in general.
8. Genetic differences do not make a workplace safe or dangerous, and a woman doesn't have to have a set of male genitalia before she can appreciate the dangers a workplace poses; she just has to see it. You offered childbirth and breastfeeding as examples of why it's impossible for men to understand female behaviour, which is nonsense.
9. Agreed, again.
10a. Good! Let's take genocide into account. Currently there are 1.2 million abortions in North America alone, every year. I don't have time to dig up figures, but for the sake of argument let's argue that the figure is an even 1 million a year since 1973, which was 36 years ago. That's 36 million lives in North America alone, more than the entire population of Canada and six times the number who died in the Holocaust. If you really want a knee-quaking number, throw in Europe and Asia, too.
10b. If you want references re: domestic violence, Google it and steer away from any clearly partisan website. Focus on official sources. It's true that women start only a slight majority of the altercations--something like 53 percent, within the margin of error--but it does prove that they are not the peaceful, innocent victims that harridans like Sunera Thobani would have you believe.
11. I generally wait until provoked to respond to provocation, Susan. I did not provoke you; you provoked me. Provocation is a defence; most people are not prepared to allow themselves to be impugned at will.
12a. Honour killings and the like are despicable and the perpetrators of such acts should be hung by the neck until they are dead. But then, so should abortionists and those who procure abortions, for exactly the same reasons--an innocent has been cruelly put to death for insubstantial and largely self-serving reasons.
12b. Yes, tribal initiations suck. So does female circumcision, female foot binding, and girls having their vaginas sewn up with thorns to prevent pre-marital sex. Fortunately, our society's problems aren't nearly so feral in nature, even if the emotional impulses that drive them are the same.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 12:53:14 PM
P.S. My mistake. That last post to Susan was supposed to go to Dogma. I'd make a lousy letter-sorter.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 12:56:41 PM
LOL... I love that Starbucks comment.. this guy has some funny stuff. However I would suggest that if he wants to be in politics that he get someone to read through his material before he posts it.
Posted by: tom | 2009-06-23 1:01:47 PM
Wow some of the comments are over the top here. Like I tell my son every day, do NOT get married. Live with them if you must, you can even have kids, but don't get married, leave yourself an out.
Posted by: tom | 2009-06-23 1:29:47 PM
Shane -
1. Acting as a mirror to people can sometimes backfire when your own reflection is visible. My 'arrogance' is second only to yours. For some reason you keep talking about abortion like we've all had one. I haven't and couldn't. It's a two-to-tango situation with pregnancy, and there are plenty of options besides abortion. There are also a lot of other situations besides rape where terminating a pregnancy should be a choice - like if the child in question is going to live for a very short time outside the womb after birth, plagued by constant pain and surgeries, only to die. I think it's selfish to put a child through that kind of torment when they are too young to understand why.
2. Many of my statements are my opinion, as are yours.
3. I wouldn't say I am emotional so much as entitled to my opinion. Just as you are and so is everyone else who has posted. My husband is good people. I don't care what your opinion on that subject is.
4. I agree that 'Respectable people are often less noticeable because they don't attract as much attention to themselves.' Could this not also be true about women?
5. It's still a discourtesy.
6. I never said you were dishonest, just that your 'data blips' are going against some of your strongest arguments.
7. The feminist movement had its roots in events like Sufferage (a strange term), but it has been derailed with some pretty strange policies.
8. I didn't use childbirth as a reason men can't understand women. I used childbirth as an example of some genetic differences that need consideration. I said that you can't comment on maternity leave until you yourself are a milk factory. The workplace injuries are usually male-oriented, if only because the professions which pose danger are typically male-popluated. This is not so much an equality issue as what people are drawn to as a profession. I have worked labour jobs where men have refused to do certain tasks because of the danger posed, as is everyone's right.
10. Please take into consideration the vast number of female infants that are systematically murdered by their parents in India and China. Human rights activists call it 'gendercide'. I also know from experience that woman start fights, too. Hitting is never ok as far as I'm concerned. It's kind of prehistoric.
11. Provocation or not, I still wouldn't like it if someone pooped on my dinner.
12a. Agreed with the first part, but not the second. That is not a debate than can be argued into agreement, methinks.
12b. Agreed again. I am proud to be Canadian and greatly respect the men and women who have fought, whether it be in the army, courtrooms or the steps or parliament, to make this country what it is today.
Posted by: Dogma | 2009-06-23 1:36:13 PM
Here's a funny tidbit. A friend of mine now lives in the house that Ms Notley grew up in. It's a beautiful spot, overlooking the Peace River valley.
His facebook profile picture, is of him, and his wife, posing with Ralph Klein.
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-23 1:48:35 PM
Dogma,
1a. Mirrors do not, in general, reflect objects behind them. Your attempt at a metaphorical and rhetorical boomerang has boomeranged.
1b. One abortion for every three live births may not represent "all" women, but it does represent, at the least, a very sizeable minority.
1c. If a child outside the womb lives only a short time, then it lives only a short time. It's not you who gets to make that decision. Will you, absent proof of a capital crime, decide what life is worth living, and what life is not. The stepping-stones of that road lead straight back to the Holocaust.
2. When I make an opinion unsupported by data, I say so. You don't, and seem to resent being asked to.
3. And I say you are, based on your insulting without provocation someone who disagreed with you, and also by the number of times the word "I" appears in your arguments. "Good people"? How many husbands do you have?!?
4. It most certainly is; however, there is no point in denying the attitude of entitlement displayed by women in general, on which you have yourself remarked.
5. But an excusable one. Yours is not, or was not until you apologized for it. Consider it excused.
6. Even strong trends have blips. Weak trends have many more.
7. Yes, to the point whether it's questionable whether contemporary feminism is really about the welfare of women at all, and not about some glutting a few bitter old spinsters' hatred of the men who would have none of them. How is denying the inherent femininity of women good for them? In places like Europe, women are also playing a larger role in society, but they shake their heads in bewilderment when they see North American feminists making fools of themselves.
8. I can comment on the effect that granting maternity leave has on a company's productivity and the mother's career prospects, even if I do not breastfeed. And if these jobs typically do not attract women, why do they nevertheless mount court cases to demand inclusion?
10a. "Gendercide" is indistinguishable from abortion, in terms of both results (dead babies) and moral depravity. But you believe there is a difference, don't you?
10b. Hitting is often appropriate and sometimes necessary. Some people simply cannot be reasoned with. The fact that a practice is old makes it neither good nor bad. Breathing is an old practice, too, and I'm not giving that up.
11. You'd have less moral grounds to do something about it, though. So if you want to enjoy your meal in peace, allow others to do the same.
12a. So I was right, then; you DO see a difference between gendercide and abortion. OK, how about this? In Metro Vancouver we have many Asian couples, and it has become so routine for them to abort a baby once they learn it's female that many labs and doctors have stopped giving out that information (although, on the q.t., they'll still tell you if you're white). Feminists object most strongly to this selective abortion of female babies, even if they emphatically support abortion in general and insist it's entirely the woman's choice. Reconcile that set of priorities, if you can. You can't--not rationally.
12b. Agreed.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-23 2:09:32 PM
1. Self-important metaphors often do boomerang. I didn't realize you were a moral compass. Sometimes people have to make horrible decisions. My cousin had to make that decision and it was very difficult for her. Some of her child's organs were outside its body and the corrective in-vitro surgery could have killed both of them, leaving her other child motherless. You can't equate genocide with something like that.
2. Again, I have said 'in my opinion' or 'I think' etc. If I'm not using your exact rhetoric, my bad. It seems you like to argue just about anything.
3. Your need to respond to every possible statement made by anyone on here would illustrate that you are emotional as well. That's kind of what makes human beings human beings, is it not? The ability to make informed decisions and judgements, which are sometimes based on emotional responses (like impact statements that are admissible in court). Also, saying someone is 'good people' is a turn of phrase, kind of like when you said 'them's the breaks' to Susan. If you want to start an argument about grammar, you're proving my point that you will argue about anything.
4. The same attitude can be displayed by men.
7. Agreed again, in some respect. It seems that many movements are based solely on getting a reaction my any means possible. I prefer to shave my armpits and wear a bra, for example.
8. Productivity has nothing to do with it. Women in Alberta, unless their companies provide more, go on E.I. while on mat leave. Also, I said the professions predominantly draw men. Not that they ONLY draw men.
10a. I only agree with abortion in extreme cases like rape and fetal/maternal trauma. What if the mother gets a very aggressive cancer and has to terminate the pregnancy or die? So yes, selectively murdering all babies of a certain gender is different. I do not have to justify the moral correctness of things I don't subscribe to, like abortion for convenience. Similarly, you don't have to answer for pedophiles and serial murderers, which are predominantly male offenses.
10b. Breathing is necessary for survival. Violence is not.
11. You've NEVER provoked anyone, ever? Kudos. You should teach a class.
12. Again, I won't defend the beliefs of people I don't agree with. I don't think that the careless disposal of human life is ok, ever.
Posted by: Dogma | 2009-06-23 2:55:50 PM
I have to call Susan T. on her claim that women do not receive equal pay in Canada, as I am quiet fed up with this lie. Name any job any where in this country where a woman doing the SAME work/job as a man does not receive the same pay. There are no such jobs.
Oh yes, I know all about "pay equity" which tries to compare oranges to apples for two completely different jobs to then claim that women make less than men. That, however, has nothing to do with your claim.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-06-23 3:55:37 PM
Feminism banging plowshares into swords! Feminism started with some valid points. Now however, it has gone haywire and got into the role of manhating. All modern day feminism is doing is seperating men and women. Women are taught that all men are scumbags who are out to at a minimum humiliate them and at worst rape and murder them. Young men watch feminists and think that most women dislike guys and enjoy running them through the ringer. They also feel that they are being blamed for past trangressions that they have no part in. The end result is distrust between the two sexes.
I saw much of this first hand in university. One of the prevailing jokes was that the campus womens center was the one building that no man had ever left alive. It felt that every week was some load of crap about womens empowerment(which somehow always degenerated into male bashing), abortion rights or pro-lesbian rallies, or how more funding was needed for some womens studies class. The result was that I find myself increasingly turned off to my fellow Canadians of the female gender. They all seemed loud, shrill, and thought that everything you did had an ulterior motive. Yet, several of these same women seemed to have a problem when I met a Polish exchange student(now my wife) and we began dating. These ladies seemed a little too interested about my relationship. Two of them also tried to make an issue about the culture gap between eastern europe and Canada. Others asked me why I was dating a woman two years behind me. I responded that my girlfriend had brains, beauty,and connected with me on a special level(very true). However, I was too well mannered at the time to state that I would rather have my hands hacked off than date these ladies who shared nationality with me.
Posted by: Brian | 2009-06-23 4:16:35 PM
Brian - I totally agree.
Man-hating is disgusting. I saw a woman the other day wearing a shirt that said, "I'm a BITCH because men like YOU made me this way." I had to shake my head. What's the point in hating an entire gender? That's writing off half of the world's population without a second thought. Wearing a shirt like that also serves to make people write her off immediately as, well... a bitch.
It has more subtle effects, though. I used to feel quite safe walking alone, but I have been so inundated with fear about all the rape that's going to happen to me that I've found my pace has quickened significantly. It's sad because my favourite time to go for a walk is at night. It used to be more peaceful, but now I just worry about the monster lurking in the shadows and all that crap. Part of that comes from the urban legends circulated via email, which I always check on Snopes now because I HATE feeling afraid for no reason.
If there is to be any further growth as a society, we have to have some mutual respect and a willingness to give a little. There are SO many discrepancies even in expense between men and women, from car insurance to haircuts, which just breeds more tension.
Good for you for finding someone who's right for YOU. Screw everyone else. We live in a country where we can choose our partners, or whether to have one at all. I am younger than my husband by 9 years and I feel more connected to him than I do to myself at times!
Well said, sir... well said.
Posted by: Dogma | 2009-06-23 4:38:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.