Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘women’

While much is being made of Nancy Pelosi’s comments on the relative lack of women in Saudi politics (see below), here at home, under very different circumstances, we’re hearing some of the same issues – and criticisms.

Stephane Dion is actively seeking female candidates to run for the federal Libs – he’s even stated that he’s willing to use a quota system to ensure “adequate representation”, and to kick out male candidates to make room for female ones.

Here in Quebec, criticism abounded after last week’s election reduced the number of female MNAs from 39 to 32.

Arguments like this have always annoyed me. As a woman, I believe that I ought to have every right and opportunity to do anything a man can do. And I also believe that, unlike in Saudi Arabia, here in Canada (and Quebec), that’s pretty much true.

Women in Saudi Arabia can’t drive, can’t vote, can’t walk out on the street unaccompanied by a male relative, have to hide behind veils and robes, can’t participate in society as free and equal members. Saudi Arabia’s problems run far deeper than simply ensuring adequate representation among elected officials. (For starters, the elections themselves are a sham… But that’s a whole different rant.)

In contrast, here, women are free, full and equal members of society. If barriers still exist – and I acknowledge that they do – they are no longer legal and we are working hard to deinstitutionalize them.

But politicians who rant about not having enough women candidates are not saying so because they truly believe that women are barred from politics or lack opportunities; they’re doing it for reasons that are – no pun intended – purely cosmetic.

And finally, a refreshing perspective on the subject from Brigitte Pellerin in the Ottawa Citizen:

According to something called the Inter-Parliamentary Union (ipu.org), Rwanda ranks first in the world with 48.8 per cent women representation in the national legislature, whereas Canada is 48th with 20.8 per cent. The United States, where we all know women are routinely persecuted by a political class bent on systemic gender inequality, is 68th with 16.3 per cent. So, is the theory that we’d be better off if we were governed more like Rwanda?

[ . . . ]

And if we’re legislating quotas for perspective, then we should also make the proportion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc. representatives match their share of the general population, assuming we even know it. And once we get there, shouldn’t we also worry about religious representation? What about race?

Oooh, dear.

To me equality means not caring whether my elected representative is male or female or black or gay or Methodist or whatever. And democracy means letting people elect whomever they think represents their views. I believe enforcing equal representation of women in politics would be wrong, undemocratic, and possibly even counterproductive. I suspect I am not alone.

Nope, not alone at all. I agree completely. And I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Equality by quota is counter-productive in the long run. It doesn’t eradicate barriers, it merely sets up new ones. Equality really ought to mean equality of opportunity, and that will only happen when we stop electing, hiring people based on their gender or skin colour or language or religion, and start judging them based on ideas, accomplishments, and – what’s that old-fashioned outdated thing again? – oh yeah, merit.

(But that just wouldn’t be, y’know, politically correct).

Note to Natasha Aimee Hall in today’s Gazette: I don’t know what you’re smoking, or if you went to sleep 40 years ago and suddenly woke up yesterday. But I suggest you take a good hard look around.

As a female hockey fan, I find this article downright insulting. You write as though women have suddenly just discovered that – hey, guess what? – our national pastime can be lots of fun to watch!

I’m not sure which is worse: The suggestion that female fans just like to ogle the hot players, or the implication that women are more into hockey these days because we’re “entering” the business arena and pursuing equality in other areas as well. Wake up, guys, this is 2007; we’ve “entered” the business arena a good long time ago, and the hockey arena as well.

Women make up nearly half of all fans attending NHL games. We follow the plays, read the papers, look at the statistics and the trades, debate the coaching strategies and line juggling, and appreciate a great comeback or an exciting goal just as much as any man does. One of my favourite girls’ night activities is going to a Habs’ game with a girlfriend, or getting together with a bunch of friends to watch a game on the big screen. We are devoted fans and have been for a long time. Reporting this as “news” suggests to me that you are completely out of touch with reality.

And that’s just women who watch the sport. You have completely failed to mention those who play it. The number of participants in women’s hockey has increased 400% in the past decade. Women play in leagues – both competitive and recreational – all over the country. I think if you asked Cassie Campbell, Danielle Goyette, Hayley Wickenheiser, or any of our gold-medal winning national team players, they might point out that not only do Canadian women play hockey, but they play it exceptionally well.

It’s attitudes like those expressed in this article that ensure that women’s hockey constantly gets the short shrift, both in terms of funding and in terms of publicity. Women like hockey, period – and we don’t need pink Habs’ t-shirts to be fans, either.

I politely suggest that you get your head checked. Into the boards. Hard.

Update: The Gazette published my letter on the subject.

These women stood up to speak out against radical fundamenatalism in the middle east and in the world:

“We must speak out now, because we’ve got nothing to lose,” said Dr. Wafa Sultan, one of four Middle Eastern women taking part in a panel discussion in Montreal yesterday to argue their position on the West’s response to Islam.

The four were keynote speakers at an Institute of Public Affairs of Montreal conference. They talked before the event about the place of women under the yoke of an increasingly fundamentalist Middle East.

[ . . . ]

Iranian-born Nazanin Afshin-Jam, a former Miss Canada, has been leading an international effort to publicize the plight of an 18-year-old Tehran rape victim sentenced to death under sharia law. Afshin-Jam recalled a peaceful rally held in Iran in which the protesting women were dispersed by extremist, heavily veiled women.

“They feel more powerful,” she said of the veiled women.

Sultan said many Muslim women are not freely choosing to wear the veil, but do so because it’s in their best interest.

Islam has other ways of enforcing a bias against women, Afshin-Jam said: “In Iran, 65 per cent of university students are women but the laws say women are not allowed to be judges.”

And under sharia law, it’s very difficult for a woman’s word to be taken seriously, she said.

In the West, “we cannot afford to lose our cherished freedoms to radicalism,” Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian, told the conference audience later in a Delta Hotel meeting room.

We often wonder where the voices are, speaking out against oppression and injustice. They exist; there are too few of them so far, they tend to get drowned out, and those who speak sadly – in this country where freedom of speech is cherished – often fear legitimately for their personal safety. But more and more, they exist. And we owe it to them to listen to what they have to say. Because the more people speak out, the more courageous the next people will feel… and the next… and the next.

I haven’t done one of these in a while. And some bloggers have been writing very, very good posts. So it’s high time, I guess.

Here’s Lynn on so-called “messianic Judaism”:

We Jews have been fighting this battle for nigh on two thousand years. Christians have been trying to explain to us where and how we went wrong since the dawn of Christianity. Whether it’s the threat of eternal damnation or death by the sword, the noose, the bullet or the gas chamber, whether it’s physical violence or gentle persuasion, we’ve been there and done that. We have all the tee shirts. Those of us with any historical education at all are way too familiar with these ploys to fall for them. Unfortunately, we live in an age when too many of us lack that education. Jews today are generally smarter about everything else and (except, perhaps, in Israel) stupider about Judaism than they’ve ever been. So we’re ripe for the picking. And, with a little help from their friends, the missionaries are eagerly anticipating the harvest.

Lisa eloquently sums up – as only she knows how – the overwhelming sentiment in Israel these days about disengagement:

The situation is heating up here; it’s not pleasant; it’s very complex; as usual, the people with the least power are paying the highest price; and I really wish this painful enterprise had been planned and executed in a more organized, sensitive fashion.

And closer to home, Debbye has some of the most reasonable commentary on the gay marriage issue I’ve seen so far from the right:

To reiterate: the one prospect I find insupportable is that of allowing gays to marry yet a future Conservative Party government suddenly declaring those marriages null and void. Try to put yourselves in the position of marrying, making plans for a future together and even making joint financial investments and then imagine being told your marriage is no longer legitimate.

Forget the circusy atmosphere we see on television and some of the wilder “activists” showcased by a sensationalist media and focus on the human face of this issue. Gay couples love one another – in probably the same variables of intensity and committment as straight couples – and I believe their love is entitled to respect.

The damage to the institution of marriage was done long before gays emerged from the closet. We can blame easier divorces, the pill, Roe vs. Wade, or the sexual revolution and even the “disposable society” but we simply cannot with any honesty blame gays much less instituting gay marriage.

Hmmmm, all women today. Well, I guess that’s fair, seeing as how the guys usually get all the linky love. Once I’m highlighting women bloggers, I should direct everyone to Meryl, Imshin and Allison while I’m at it, not for any particular post but more for all of them in general.

The sun’s come out and dried up all the rain. It’s gonna be a nice day.

People are right to call it only a small step. Women in Kuwait can now vote and run for office but they are still bound by strict Islamic laws and in most ways are still second-class citizens. Not to mention the sorry state of democracy in Kuwait, where voting really doesn’t mean much for men or women.

Still, even a small step forward is very good news.

(Hat tip: Debbye).

A sperm donor was awarded visitation rights by a Quebec judge:

A man who donated his sperm so that a lesbian couple could have a child has been given visitation rights by a Quebec judge.The Journal de Montréal reported this morning that Quebec Superior Court Justice Suzanne Courteau granted the man the right to visit the child, three times per week, even though he isn’t officially recognized as the father’s child.

And why should he be recognized as the father? Is he helping to raise the child? Support it? To be its father in any way whatsoever? Does he even meet the most liberal, loose definition of fatherhood imaginable? No, absolutely not.

Yesterday was father’s day. A day to appreciate our fathers and all they have done for us. This man has done nothing for this baby. Being a father is about a lot more than simply donating some sperm. The courts should recognize that, and leave the decisions like these up to the baby’s real parents.

Muslim women’s groups are outraged at a Canadian court ruling allowing “Canadianized Sharia” in Ontario:

Then the province of Ontario quietly approved its use. Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, sharia-based marriage, divorce and family tribunals run by the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice are expected to begin later this year. The move has so horrified many Muslim women that they’re vowing to stop the tribunals before they start.

“We’ve had a flood of e-mails from people, asking `How can we help?’” says Alia Hogben, president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, whose 900 members come from a variety of Islamic sects.

They were outraged that Muslim women could be coerced into taking part in sharia tribunals or face family and community ostracism — or worse.

Why, they asked, should these women be treated differently from other Canadian women?

“When you come to Canada, you are a human being with full rights,” says Jonathan Schrieder, a Toronto civil litigation lawyer. Allowing sharia here — even a “Canadianized” version, as its proponents claim — “will subject Muslim women to a huge injustice.”

Indeed.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with religious arbitration being used voluntarily by members of a community, when it doesn’t contravene secular law. For example, Montreal – like many cities – has a Jewish beit din to decide matters of Jewish law, and members of the community can agree to subject themselves to its jurisdiction.

But what we’re talking about here isn’t voluntary arbitration: it’s an attempt to relegate Muslim women to second-class citizen status against their will. Even though the Ontario court ruling specifies that all parties must “voluntarily” submit themselves to the process, this is certain not to work because the very nature of Shari’a law makes the whole process open to unbelievable amount of abuse. No Canadian should stand for this.

Via LGF and Burnside, who are all over this one.

David seems happy at the decision of the state of New Jersey’s ban on Ladies’ Night, on the grounds that such promotions discriminate against men.

Give me a break! This is political-correctness gone way overboard.

What next? No more student or senior prices at the movies? No more youth tickets on trains?

*Sigh*.

Update: Whoops, that was Daniel who posted that opinion, not David. Apologies. By the way, read them both at Tainted Glass. (Plug, plug).

. . . was nice.

I headed down there over the weekend, and I managed to squeeze some city exploring in between the business I had to do. It’s been a number of years since my last visit, and I can’t get over how much the city has changed. Not just the conspicuous absence of a couple of towers. But also how much more patriotic everyone seems. And how clean the city is in general, compared to what I remember from my last time there. Still expensive though. That hasn’t changed.

At any rate, I missed a bunch of news over the weekend, and rather than play catch-up, I’ll post a few links:

Allison, Lynn, and Harry commemorate Yom HaZikaron. Barry has been all over the North Korean train crash story. David weighs in on the abortion debate. And Meryl tries to take back the F-word from the nutbags. (In case you’re wondering, the F-word in question is feminism.)

In other news, seems like the only Habs fan cheering these days is none other than Vinny Lecavalier. *Sigh*.

Why does this somehow not surprise me?

This year, The Link would like to dedicate the International Women’s Day Issue to the memory of Zahra Kazemi and Rachel Corrie. While various Link members and staff may or may not have disagreed with the politics these two women held dear, we all agree the violent deaths they suffered in their non-violent opposition to human rights abuses was tragic, and a travesty of justice.

This as part of the Concordia paper’s special Women’s issue, which was, as they put it, produced by throwing “all those who identify as men out of the office and allows the women a Women Only Space to complete production of the paper”.