It’s a good day for the ladies

One of the most frustrating arguments I encounter when talking about feminism is the various double standards. Women are portrayed as the passive recipients of actions, and yet are the ones who must take responsibility for their marginalization (either by “grow(ing) a pair”, “get(ting) a sense of humour”, or not “dress(ing) like a total whore”). There is rarely the corrolary pressure put on men to moderate their (our) behaviour, at least not by non-feminists. Of course when feminists do say “hey guys, don’t do that”, they (we) get piled on for being a castration-hungry horde of groupthinkers who are just trying to get laid (if you’re a straight man) or who just need to get laid (if you’re not).

Not too long ago, I talked about an experience I had when I was doing undergrad orientation, where the women in my residence were taught a number of ways to safeguard themselves against date rape. Oddly (or, rather, not oddly at all), there were no accompanying instructions for the guys. Safeguarding people from date rape was a ‘victim-only’ responsibility. In that same post, I lauded a program that is seeking to shift the conversation away from that kind of blame-based advice and toward a “personal responsibility” *twitch* model. The idea seems to be picking up steam in some unlikely places. [Read more…]

Calgary chalks one up in the ‘win’ column

The cup of conservatism overfloweth with bromides about the virtues of small government. “That government is best which governs least” is a pithy quote from Thoreau. People today are probably more familiar with Ronald Reagan’s most dangerous nine words: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. There’s the oh-so-cute line about shrinking government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub (which, I’ve got to tell you, is a fucking creepy image). Of course, time and again we see that when “conservatives” are given power, they use it to rapidly expand government’s role in the social sphere while cutting the amount of actual good they do in terms of policy.

Hypocrisy aside, the maxims of ‘small government’ are still mostly nonsense. It is not the size of government that is meaningful, it’s the behaviour of government. Institutions that are transparent and made accountable to the people in its constituency can provide excellent services and aid in a variety of sectors. Insofar as a small government is easier for the electorate to monitor than a big one, there is some virtue in reducing size per se. Of course there is a trade-off to be paid in reducing government size – it becomes much less able to do things. A government small enough to drown in a bathtub is too small to react meaningfully to a national emergency or create a sufficient safety net – things it does much better than the private-sector alternative.

There is a balance that must be struck, to be sure. Big government isn’t always the problem, and shrinking it isn’t always the solution. Sometimes large social problems require government-assisted solutions. Case in point: [Read more…]

The changing face of American marriage

If you’re a really long-time Cromrade (and I don’t think too many of you still commenting have been with the blog for this long), you might remember a post I wrote about the proliferation of ‘interracial’ marriages in Canada:

I am heartened by the findings, of course. As the product of a mixed union myself (two, technically, after my dad re-married) I am obviously a supporter of marrying whoever you want to. As different groups begin to live together, go to school together, and work together, people become more exposed to other cultures and ethnic groups. As time goes by, they start wanting a bit more exposure (of the boobies kind) with other cultures and ethnic groups. Of course, this has a particular application to Canada.

(snip)

What’s interesting is that the increase in inter-racial marriages isn’t an issue of simple familiarity (seeing different kinds of people in your day-to-day life), nor is it people becoming particularly philosophically enlightened. There is a phenomenon in social psychology called ‘in-group bias‘. Basically, you are more likely to favour members of your own group to the exclusion of those in other groups.

Well, as is the case with these ‘stories’, we have a new finding out of the United States that says much the same thing: [Read more…]

Americans: not as dumb as I thought

I have to admit something to my American readers: I have a complicated relationship with your country. I kind of see America like a big brother who’s kind of a screwup. Lots of talent, but makes poor decisions – gets drunk and picks fights, but then once he’s bailed out of jail he goes to the library and comes up with a brilliant get-rich quick scheme. And then blows all of the money on drugs. He gets into abusive relationships instead of dating that perfectly nice and cute girl (who is the one that keeps bailing him out of jail), because he likes ‘bad girls’. He’s powerful and brilliant, but erratic and dangerous.

American people, to draw large, sweeping, and unfair generalizations, seem to be willing to put up with a lot more bullshit than I would think is rational. Part of that is the fact that they believe a lot of bullshit about “American exceptionalism” and Manifest Destiny and the shining city on the hill and “leaders of the free world” and “model of freedom for the whole world” all those myths that were sort of true about a half-century ago. The remainder, however, baffles me. To think that the same country that produced the Ivy League also produced Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign is a fact that makes me have to have a little lie-down.

To put a point on it, I don’t think much of the American electorate. After the last election here in Canada I don’t really think much of the Canadian electorate either, but there’s no chance that Herman Cain would lead a national opinion poll here. I have to believe that. However, I may have to revise my impression of Americans upward slightly: [Read more…]

Religious no-longer-free-dom

If they weren’t such a bunch of self-righteous, predatory, literally holier-than-thou, shockingly dangerous and immoral scumbags, I’d have some sympathy for the Catholic Church. After all, after centuries of iron-fisted rule over the minds of powerful nations around the world, the level of power afforded the Holy See has diminished substantially. As people have learned to pull back the curtain and find out who’s working the levers and dials of the Great And Powerful Pope, the church has had to start chasing believers and whining like a bully whose victims are finally fighting back.

One of the things that truly baffles me about public policy and religion is the fact that churches are tax exempt. I suppose it is defensible insofar as some churches provide charitable services; however, that is not even close to all they do. Their main activity is doctrinal instruction, not charitable organization. That kind of ‘service’ does not, in my mind, warrant getting the special privilege of having all income declared tax-exempt.

The Vatican has a weird relationship with Italy. It’s like when a spoiled child announces that ze is now going by a new name, and then the parents just kind of go with it until ze grows up and stops demanding to be called “Tangerine”. Except in this case, the parents are all the countries in the world, and the bizarre name is “Vatican”. True to its form, because the Vatican is technically a church, it demands tax exemptions for all of its properties, even those which are obviously not places of worship (as though that made a relevant difference).

I think the parents are getting fed up: [Read more…]

Parents lose ‘right’ to shield children from facts

One of the most irritating bromides I hear from parents (predominantly conservative parents, but not exclusively) is that they don’t want things taught in their children’s schools that contradict their (the parents’) beliefs. I suppose the fear is that teaching children that not everyone thinks identically will so confuse them that their poor little heads will a’splode. I’ve actually had one person try to tell me that kids who learn things that contradict what their parents believe have a higher rate of developmental problems – so therefore public schooling is harmful. It took me way too long to stop taking that guy seriously (that’s what I get for trying to read conservative writers for the sake of ‘balance’).

First of all, bringing up a kid who knows how to disagree with you is a good thing. Second, since the only way to ensure your kid doesn’t encounter any dissenting opinions is to raise hir in a bubble, cut off from the entire world – there’s a legal term for that. Third, raising a child to accept authority unquestioningly puts them at greater risk of being taken in by unscrupulous hucksters of all manner of ideas. Fourth, it severely handicaps their ability to make independent decisions if ze’s never been exposed to stuff that Mom or Dad didn’t warn hir about. Fifth, it retards their understanding of the world – there are a lot of ideas out there and it’s important to be exposed to lots of them.

There is perhaps no corner in which this attitude is more popular than among parents who wish to raise their children in a particular religious tradition. Maybe it is because they know how weak and vapid the arguments for faith are, or maybe it’s because they truly believe that little Ashley couldn’t possibly cope with the knowledge that different beliefs exist, but religious parents are infuriated by the idea of comparative religious instruction. They’re about to get a lot angrier: [Read more…]

What actual honour looks like

One of the neat remnants of the British Parliamentary system is the practice of referring deferentially to colleagues by an honorific title. So if I were addressing the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, I would not simply refer to him as “Mister Harper” or “hey you Lego-haired fascist”, he would be properly addressed as “the Right Honourable Prime Minister”. Lesser MPs are still “the honourable member from (riding)”. While it may help to preserve civility, there are no conventions about what kind of language follows the honorific:

Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin added fuel to the obscenity-laden firestorm he created this week when he cursed at a Conservative senator who suggested murderers should be given ropes to hang themselves. On Wednesday, Martin called Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu an “a—hole” for the comment that sparked controversy. When demands for an apology were made Thursday, Martin refused.

“Nobody elected this son of a bitch, he should keep his comments to himself,” Martin told the Winnipeg Free Press. He added perhaps his only mistake was that he didn’t include the required honorific when addressing a senator. “I should have called him an honourable a—hole.”

Pat Martin, incidentally, has a Twitter account and is consistently awesome.

There is again something vaguely Orwellian, however, about referring to politicians as “the honourable” when many of their actions reveal them to be something else quite entirely*. It is refreshing, therefore, to see a member of public office truly live up to their responsibility to serve the people: [Read more…]

Are we ‘getting it’?

So this morning I lamented openly about the seeming inability of my fellow Canadians to notice the extremism and hypocritical, bullying nature of our current government. I may have oversold the argument a bit – it may not be that people don’t notice; it may simply be that they don’t care. Whatever the reason for the lack of national outcry over a series of should-be-scandals that are much larger than the one that played a role in unseating the previous government, we do not seem particularly concerned with the incompetence and malice that characterizes much (but certainly not all) of the current regime.

There is another potential explanation: the data may just take time to hit home. I will confess that I probably pay more attention to politics than the ‘average’ person. I find the discussion of competing alternative explanations for the same issue fascinating, and I find the foibles of humanity displayed proudly in the halls of power to be endlessly diverting. I also care passionately about the direction of my country (and the world in general), so I am always hungry for new information about the political system. There are, believe it or not, people who are even more passionate and motivated than I am, and it is to them I go when I need the cracks in my understanding filled in a bit.

So I suppose it is likely that what I might see as apathy or purposeful indifference may simply be an entirely-understandable ‘lag time’ between when I get fired up, and when the rest of the country comes around: [Read more…]

A surprising story (and a not-so-surprising one)

If you’ve been with the blog from the beginning, you know that I’m not really a fan of Malawi. From their persecution of ‘witches’, to their attitude about polygamy (that women should be under the protection of a man, so men should marry as many women as possible), to their backwards policy about homosexuality – let’s just say that Malawi is not the most progressive place in the world. I don’t know why, aside from the fact that most places in the developing world haven’t yet moved beyond the traditions and superstitions of a pre-scientific age (owing in no small part to the fact that many don’t have access to education), and perhaps the more pervasive influence of religion in that region.

Whatever the various causes, Malawi is not a place where you expect to hear a strong statement of enlightenment princples. Which is why I was so flabbergasted to read this: [Read more…]

Becoming Canadian

As the child of an immigrant father, I am conflicted about what it means to be “a Canadian”. I spent my childhood living in a white community, surrounded by kids whose parents had been born in-country, if not in-city. I didn’t really start encountering immigrant families until I was in my adolescent years, by which time I had a fairly firm grasp on what I thought it meant to be ‘Canadian’.

As the years have passed and I’ve become more intimately acquainted with the varieties of Canadian experience, it’s become more and more difficult to justify my belief that Canadians ought to share a set of values. I think that everyone should always agree with me about everything, but I am willing to accept dissent within tolerance margins. Canada’s values are, for the most part, in concert with my own values – there is a certain amount of chicken/egg questioning that one must engage in, but I can defend most of my values beyond simply stating “because that’s what I believe.”

The question, though, becomes whether or not it is reasonable to expect newcomers to this country (like my father) to adopt “our” values. After all, as I have argued before, one of Canada’s strengths is that it doesn’t have a monocultural or monoethnic heritage: [Read more…]