Multiculturalism and women's rights

So the Star wants to have "a conversation about multiculturalism" and whether or not it's working. They're starting with women's rights.

The lead-in story is about a man who killed his wife, and then claimed he'd done so for his "honour" and his religion. So the entire discussion is framed by the idea that multiculturalism is a shelter for those who want to abuse or oppress women. In other words, "ethnic" women are oppressed by their culture and society in comparison to the women of white, western, mainstream Canadian society.

The problem with this contruction is that it leads directly to the idea of the ignorant, backwards savages, just waiting for Western society to ride in on a white horse and civilize them. It's the same narrative that claims we invaded Afghanistan in order to "free" Afghan women.

The thing of it is, white Western "civilization" is not really all that kind to women. Oh sure, we have technical equality. But how many women are Members of Parliament? Heads of major corporations? In decision-making positions generally? We don't stone women for adultery, but how many women are beaten, abused, or murdered by the men in their lives? We don't legislate burkas, but are we really free to wear clothes that make us comfortable and to look the way we want? What's more oppressive, a hijab or breast implants? How are our cultural imperatives really superior to those of other cultures?

We want to immigrants to assimilate into Canadian society, we say. But when we prevent girls from playing sports because we don't like their headwear, or give a woman a hard time for wanting to swim in something insufficiently sexy, are we really liberating anyone?

No woman should have to suffer for being a women. And religion or culture is no defense. But that's just as true of "Canadian" culture as it is of any other.

Perhaps, instead of judging newcomers to Canada for not being "Canadian" enough as regards women's rights, we should examine the beam in our own eye. We are not such paragons, we white westerners, that we can tell anyone that our way of living is the only appropriate one.

Friday Random Ten

My brain's too hot for substantive posting today, I'm afraid. I haven't acclimated to summer just yet. So in the meantime, ten random songs from the iPod.

Counting Crows, Round Here
Tori Amos, Famous Blue Raincoat
PJ Harvey, No Girl So Sweet
Metric, Wet Blanket
Moby, Lift Me Up
Stereolab, Diagonals
Department of Foreign Affairs, The Small Print
The Frames, In The Deep Shade
Loreena McKennitt, Courtyard Lullaby
Cat Power, I Don't Blame You

Disclaimer: I do think breastfeeding is a good thing

I must admit, when I first saw this story about adoptive moms breastfeeding, my immediate reaction was a gee-whiz "isn't that neat" reaction. I also, of course, immediately wondered if they'd be able to extend this induced lactation to men, à la Woman at the Edge of Time.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this is really just one more addition to the cult of Perfect Parenting. Or rather -- let's be honest here -- Perfect Mothering. It's not enough, any more, to adopt a child, bring hir home, and love hir. Now you have to take all kinds of hormones and pump your breasts for weeks, in the hopes of producing enough breastmilk to "give your child the best start in life".

Listen to what's involved:

The 32-year-old municipal engineer started a rigorous pumping routine - every three hours, around the clock - even darting home from work on a sewage project to keep up the routine.

After four weeks, with the help of a drug to promote lactation and some supplemental formula bottles, Ms. Baird was able to breastfeed her newly adopted daughter.

This is not a minor effort. This is something that takes serious commitment, a willingess to take lactation-promoting drugs (with side effects? most drugs do have 'em), and a co-operative employer (who won't mind you 'darting home from work'). And I hear pumping isn't exactly pleasant for a lot of women.

I mean really, isn't it just one more thing for mothers to feel guilty about? If you can't breastfeed for whatever reason -- medical, work-related, whatever -- now there's another counterexample of women going to extreme lengths to do what you can't. And if you're an adoptive mom, and you're not willing/able to put in the kind of effort induced lactation calls for -- and it does sound like a pretty serious effort to me -- are you now an inferior candidate? Will people who'd make great parents start getting rejected because they can't or won't put their bodies through this?

6 Billion Others

6 Billion Others is, essentially, a series of interviews with people from all over the planet, answering questions such as "what is love?" and "what did your parents teach you?". It's a wonderful glimpse into the lives of people you'd never ordinarily meet.

(via redjenny)

So punching boys is acceptable, then?

This past week, a visiting hockey fan was punched by one or more Senators fans for making a joking comment about the game.

This is, of course, an appalling display of violence and sports-related stupidity. Taunting the opposing team is a time-honoured part of competitive sports, and taking sports overly seriously is a time-honoured display of lack of perspective. I should think it goes without saying that punching people is not okay. And that if our devotion to our team is such that we'll punch people for saying bad things about them, perhaps we should lay off the beer and take some deep breaths.

But hockey fans do stupid things and get into stupid fights all the time. Do you know why this story really made the news?

Because the victim was a woman. And, as everyone knows, you don't punch girls.

I agree: punching girls is a bad thing. I would go so far as to say punching anyone is a bad thing. So why does this kind of display of poor sportsmanship have to be tied up with archaic notions of chivalry and protection of the "weaker" sex?

Reviewing a film I haven't seen

I was at the movies the other day (watching something fluffy and absurd, no doubt), and got to see a preview of the forthcoming Knocked Up.

The premise, if you haven't heard of it, is that a pretty, succesful young woman, upon getting a big promotion, goes drinking to celebrate and has a one-night stand with "some guy" who is neither conventionally attractive nor rich and succesful. She ends up pregnant. She then calls up the guy, and lightweight romantic-comedy hilarity ensues.

There is something profoundly unsettling to me about this premise.

Let's set aside the abortion issue entirely -- in the popular media these days, no one ever seems to consider terminating an unplanned pregnancy, but let's give the benefit of the doubt here: the character may legitimately want to be a mother, or she may decide that it's the best choice for her. Nothing wrong with that, although I doubt any alternative will even be raised.

What bothers me is that she decides to seek out the guy, and that she (apparently) starts a relationship with him. Come on. I'm willing to suspend disbelief only so far. Yeah, sure, rom-com premise. But how much do you want to bet it'll get couched as 'a child needs his father' or some such?

This is not just a silly idea for a romantic comedy (although it's definitely silly). This is a statement of cultural belief. That a woman who gets pregnant after casual sex* would rather try to be a co-parent with someone she doesn't even know** than be a single mother says a lot about what this culture thinks of single mothers. And do I even need to say how appalling the idea is that a baby will bring two people together into a context appropriate for a romantic comedy?

What it comes down to, for me, is that this is a profoundly reactionary premise. And even if the film ultimately subverts it (which I cynically doubt), the very existence of the premise, the fact that the studio expects it to sell movie tickets, promotes this kind of reactionary thought.

Also, it's probably gonna suck.


* it would be unsporting of me to ask if any birth control was involved, wouldn't it?
** not to be alarmist, but seriously. She knows nothing about this guy. And she's going to let him help raise her baby? I don't think so.

Life is unfair

I've been trying to come up with something intelligent to say about this article from Monday's Globe and Mail, but I just keep coming back to the same thought: how incredibly unfair. This poor woman would have been, it seems to me, an excellent candidate for permanent residency and citizenship (I haven't, of course, seen her file, but no one seems to be saying otherwise). And now she may have to leave, because of something that happened to her here.

If she'd been assaulted in a more conventional way -- mugged and beaten up, say -- and left with a permanent medical condition (not being a doctor, I'm having a hard time thinking of an equivalent, but let's say permanent damage to a major organ, requiring ongoing care), would she still be expected to leave? I honestly don't know the answer.

I do hope the article draws enough attention to the case that Citizenship & Immigration will reconsider. Not that the immigration system can ever be truly fair, any more than life in general can be; but this looks like a special case if ever I saw one.

The story's been all over the Canadian lefty blogosphere, and even Garth Turner's in on the act -- a pro-life rally on the Hill used the Canada workmark (that's the word "Canada" with a little flag over the last "a") on one of their banners.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know if the Conservatives sponsored the march, or if the logo was used without permission?

(to be honest, much as I'd like to accuse the Harperites of re-opening the issue, my money's on the latter. It wouldn't be the first time the wordmark's been used without permission)

And, surprisingly enough, I haven't heard a peep from the media on the subject... have you?

Duceppe's mistake

Gilles Duceppe says he "made a mistake" when he decided to run for the leadership of the Parti Québecois ... and then quickly changed his mind.

There's been a lot of speculation about what on earth Mr. Duceppe was thinking when he first announced that he wanted to lead the PQ, and then why on earth he would flip-flop so quickly. The Globe says he was counting on the support of another potential candidate, and when Curzi said he wasn't running Duceppe's chances immediately looked much poorer.

My personal theory? I think Duceppe figured he could bully Mme. Marois into sitting this one out. He figured that if he announced quickly and loudly enough, she'd just roll over and let him win, rather than risk dividing the party. And then, when she did not just give in, he was left in an awkward position.