Can't live without me

I was greeted this morning by the news of two murder-suicides: one involving a pro wrestler, and one in Toronto. Not really how I prefer to wake up in the morning.

In both cases, although all the facts are not in, it seems the men involved killed their female partners, and other members of the family (a child in one case; the woman's mother in the other). Steroids are being mentionned as a possible contributing factor in the wrestler's case; in the other, the only explanation so far proferred is that the man recently lost his job.

There's something particularly horrifying about this kind of murder-suicide. Of course every case is unique, and we really don't know what happened yet, but it reads to me like the logical outcome of a viewpoint that makes women appendages to the men in their lives. So depressed or crazy you want to kill yourself? Better kill her, too. After all, she's a part of you. She shouldn't be able to live without you. You'll be together forever...

A little bit of baby fat

From the Globe and Mail:

Is your child too fat? Your doctor may be the only one brave enough to tell you.

Give me a break. If you or your child is "too fat" (by whatever arbitrary standard you choose), all of society will feel entirely free to tell you. And tell you. And tell you.

There's been a trend lately in "obesity epidemic" stories of claiming that people don't know when they (or their children) are overweight. It's insane. No one whose BMI is even the slightest bit outside that arbitrary "ideal" range is under any illusions. Some of us struggle to lose weight. Some of us struggle to be healthy (not necessarily the same thing!). But we're all aware that we're part of the "obesity epidemic" (yes, even those of us who are technically "overweight" rather than "obese"). And it's just as true of children. This idea that "tough love" is needed is just heartbreaking. As is this quote:

For the longest time, a little bit of baby fat was okay

Did you notice that? Not even "a little bit" of baby fat is acceptable anymore.

Junkfood Science is the go-to blog on the absurdities of scare stories like these, so go there and read through her archives. She does an excellent job of highlighting what's wrong with the BMI, the "obesity epidemic" and the trend of weighing and measuring school kids.

Anglicans will not bless same-sex unions

This is disappointing.

It's particularly disappointing given that some Anglican churches have already been performing the blessings. If they're required to stop now, it would be a sad step backwards.

I think it's worth noting that it wasn't ordinary Anglicans, or even ordinary priests, who voted against the idea of blessing same-sex unions (not even marriages, mind you) -- it was the bishops, the folks at the top of the church power structure. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that, but it is suggestive. I suppose at the very least it suggests that if they have the vote again in a few years, the outcome might be a different one. (Never hurts to be optimistic, right?)

The summer barbeque season has begun

So parliament's on vacation. Just as well, really, since parliament and any laws it passes are apparently irrelevant to the governance of this country.

You know, I was really hoping for a spring election. I'm fed up with the Conservatives governing as though they had a majority, and I'm fed up with the opposition parties for going along with it. Yes, I know, nobody thinks they could win an election right now. And yes, I know, Canadians might suffer a fit of collective insanity and re-elect the Cs. But this is ridiculous.

I confess, I complained as much as anyone about Paul Martin's inability to get anything done with his minority government. So I should be glad that Stephen Harper's getting stuff accomplished. Apart from disagreeing with everything he says and believes, of course. But it would be nice if there were some semblance of consultation and compromise. It would be nice if they just pretended to care what anyone else had to say.

It would be nice if they just acknowledged that parliament as a whole is supposed to be running the country, not just Stephen Harper.

But that may be too much to ask.

Housework and the Division of Labour

After reading Jill's thoughtful post on the subject, there may, at some point be a post about marriage (it is wedding season, after all). This isn't it. This is a post about housework, prompted largely by Thomas' thoughtful comment (#32, if the link doesn't work properly).

The division of housework is one of those feminist person-is-political issues that it seems we should have resolved already. It seems so obvious: assuming both members of a heterosexual couple are working outside the home (and thus have similar out-of-house responsibilities), they should each do 50% of the housework. Easy, right? Especially if both partners have good intentions are are committed to an ideology of equality.

Not so much, as it turns out. Women still, consistently, end up doing more. It's been confirmed in poll after study after anecdote. Why?

For starters, there's the "she has a higher standard of cleanliness/she notices the dirt more" argument. I don't think I need to spend much time on this, since it strikes me as a pretty obvious cop-out. Bachelor pads to the contrary, most adult men don't want to live in pig-stys, and thus benefit from women's supposed "higher standard". Of course, culturally, women know they're the ones who are going to be criticized if the in-laws come by and see a less than pristine environment. And as long as men "don't notice" the dirt, they can get away without cleaning it -- it's all very passive-aggressive, although I'll grant that for many men it's probably at least partially uncounscious.

But the big thing, for me, is what Thomas mentions: the keeping track. It doesn't "count" as a chore if you're the one who constantly "notices" that cleaning needs doing -- it only counts when he responds to your request/nagging.

This turns the woman into the primary cleanliness monitor, and the man into the "helper". It becomes her responsibility to stay on top of the housework, and if she's not paying attention, asking him to "pitch in", it doesn't get done. And that's exhausting. It's a constant monitor-layer, over and above a woman's "fair share". And, of course, the woman's the one who has to ensure "fairness" is maintained in the "equitable" division of the "actual work" (odanu has a great comment at pandagon to this effect).

My, that's a lot of scare quotes in that paragraph. I fear my sarcasm is showing.

The other effect of the monitor-role is to turn the woman into Mom -- after all, it's Mom who assigns chores and asks for help around the house. And you can't be an equal partner when you're being Mommy.

Bitch PhD's suggestion for dealing with the housework issue is to "be a bitch about it" (and that's reductive, so go read her entire post -- it's a good one) -- effectively, to draw attention to the amount of work being done so that the male partner can't pretend not to notice. It forces the man to untimately internalize the workload in the way women are socialized to from childhood. It's good advice for a certain kind of person, but I have a hard time separating "being a bitch" in this way from "nagging", and, for me, it's psychologically and emotionally exhausting, even if it pays off in the long run. Nagging also puts the woman in a kind of Mommy role that I'd prefer to stay well out of. But I don't have a better suggestion.

Is true domestic equality impossible, even with an egalitarian-minded partner? Surely not. But it does take a lot of work, and a lot of goodwill, especially on the part of the man (who, after all, is being asked to give a privilege that's pretty deeply ingrained).

So -- ideas, comments, suggestions? How do you get a male partner to really truly pull his weight? Without mind games? Assume good intent and a desire for equality on his part, because we've got to get this kind of thing straight with our allies before we can hope to do any good to the more traditionally-minded folks.

Raising kids is a no-win proposition

• Kids should get more cuts and scrapes.
• Kids need to play outside; otherwise they'll become obese couch potatoes.
• Kids need to be supervised, and driven to and from school every day; otherwise they'll be kidnapped and raped and murdered.
• Kids need to be exposed to Baby Einstein videos; otherwise they'll never be geniuses.
• Kids shouldn't play sports; they'll become too competitive and lack empathy.
• Kids need to play sports; otherwise they'll be fat and nobody will like them.
• Kids shouldn't play sports; they'll get hurt.

Add yours in comments.

The Wage Gap

It comes as no surprise to me that, according to Statistics Canada, the wage gap between men and women has not substantially narrowed.

The wage gap is one of those hydra-headed gender issues that never seems to go away. We don't hear as often these days about women being paid less than men for doing the same jobs, but it's still generally legal and acceptable to pay substantially less for jobs that women tend to do (secretarial work, nursing, teaching) than for jobs men tend to do (janitorial work, construction). And why are these jobs so gender-specific, anyway? And would they still be as undervalued if men tended to do them?

So what's the solution? Do we need to work harder on encouraging girls to pursue traditionally lucrative fields? Yes, absolutely. But we also need to work on accurately valuing the work that women are doing now. 'Course, if we paid teachers what they were worth, I bet we'd see an increase in the number of male teachers...

Partys & Politics

In the Canadian system of government, we don't vote for a Prime Minister directly, or for a party, or for an ideology. We vote for a person -- a Member of Parliament. One of the side effects of voting for a person is that sometimes that person's views are not identical with his or her party's.

Case in point: Bill Casey, who yesterday voted against his party's budget and was promptly booted from the Conservative caucus (I am amused to read today that McKay had said they wouldn't be punishing any dissenters, in part because I can't see any party not punishing someone who voted against something as major as a budget).

I'm not going to get into whether Casey's right or wrong in his contention that this budget will cost Atlantic Canada money. But the relationship between a person and his or her party interests me. I don't think it's stretching to say that, for the majority of Canadians, a vote is at least as much for a political party, a platform, and/or a leader as it is for the individual running in that riding. And yet the individual has the power to act completely contrary to the party, the platform, the leader. David Emerson's the most blatant example yet, treating political parties as competing job offers, but he's far from the only MP to leave a party or change parties while in office.

The ability of an MP to make a principled stand is an important one, I think. If MPs weren't expected to ultimately make up their own minds on every vote, there would be no point in voting. And, really, no point in electing anyone besides the Prime Minister. Then Harper could just appoint whoever he wanted to be Ministers, without even having to put them in the Senate.

And yet. Are MPs still representing their constituents' wishes when they leave the party those constituents voted for?

Floor-crossing is a funny thing. It's hard to justify, and so often it looks opportunistic. MPs who sit as independants seem more honourable, but if they're voting with a party other than the one they used to belong to, is the effect any different?

I suppose the message, if I have one, is this: the Canadian electorate is too focussed on national politics, on the leaders and on perceptions of the parties (thanks, consolidated national media!), and not focussed enough on the individuals they're actually electing. You might not always be able to predict your future MP's actions, but maybe you can get a sense of whether their sticking points line up with yours or not.

In the movies, when they drop the charges, it means you're free

The charges have been dropped against Omar Khadr.

This doesn't mean he gets to go home.

You know, every time I think about Omar Khadr I just get really, really sad. He was a kid -- 15 years old -- when he was imprisoned in Guantanamo. Whatever he may have done -- and as far as I can tell, it seems to consist of throwing a grenade in a battle -- he was a kid. He's not a kid anymore.

Five years ago, he may have been indoctrinated with some fairly repugnant beliefs. He may have participated in attacks against Americans. He may have done, thought, intended some pretty terrible things. But he was still a kid, and kids are malleable, they're easily influenced, and we don't hold them responsible for their actions in the way we do adults.

Whether Khadr was radicalized then or not, he certainly is now. He's been imprisoned for five years, his only contact with other detainees and the American military. What do you think he thinks of the West now?

I don't know if he was salvageable. But I know he was a kid. He deserved better than this.

He still does.

Friday Random Ten

Bright Eyes, At the Bottom of Everything
British Sea Power, It Ended on an Oily Stage
Paper Moon, Remember Me
Portishead, Wandering Star
Death Cab for Cutie, Some Day You Will Be Loved
Godspeed You Black Emperor!, Sleep: Murray Ostril (They Don't Sleep Anymore on the Beach; Monheim (aka the first half of the second disc of Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven -- GYBE! doesn't work so well for random 10s, do they?)
Sarah Slean, Mary
Weeping Tile, Don't Let it Bring You Down
Delerium, Incantation
Stars, This Charming Man


Happy weekend, y'all.

The inevitable Big White Wedding Post

Maybe I am, as Judy Gerstel would have you believe, an "old-fashioned proto-feminist". Or maybe I'm just a grinch. But you're not going to convince me that huge white consumerist merengue weddings are somehow worthy of my support just by waving the word "choice"* around. As Twisty would say, not all choices are feminist choices, and being a feminist doesn't require me to endorse every choice a woman makes.

Gerstel, along with the wedding industry as a whole, would have you believe that a wedding is an idealized expression of the bride's identity, a realization of the princess dreams she's had since childhood (courtesy of Disney and Barbie et al, of course). But there's nothing original about the Big White Wedding -- it's a highly codified ritual, with very strict requirements. The social and familial pressure to meet expectations is enormous. When was the last wedding you went to where the bride wore a colour other than white?** And no, ivory doesn't count.

I'm not calling for us to harangue brides who choose to follow the script. I have family weddings this summer, too, and I'll show up ready to celebrate the happy occasion. I don't blame any of those brides for going along with what society expects of them. But let's not pretend that there's anything empowering or feminist or individual about BWWs, or that it's something women naturally want that we should just accept. Because come on.


*and incidentally, what is up with using the word "choice" against feminists as if it were some kind of trump card?
** the white-dress thing is a particular irritant to me. It's become this huge symbol of "virginity" and "purity" (snort) and tradition, but its popularity dates only to Queen Victoria wearing a white dress to her wedding. Before that, wedding dresses were just one of your best dresses, not a one-time-only white confection.