GT: Federal Election

[Resolute 14]

As far as gamergate goes, I guess it is impressive that Trudeau is aware of it enough to know the "movement" is rooted in misogyny rather than ethics.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

And then this: What I am most interested in (in Trudeau's 'gamergate' 'stand') were his 'I am a feminist' comments. Maybe this needs it's own discussion thread too lol. The dictionary definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." If that is the definition, aren't like 99% of us feminists? If I where to be asked if I was a feminist, I would respond by saying I absolutely strongly advocate political, economic and social equality. I don't think that's exactly what Trudeau (or a large portion of those who use the term feminist) mean.
What is it supposed to mean, now, to be a feminist?

What does it mean today? Whatever someone saying it wants it to mean. For a politician or public figure, it means you want women to like you. For the ideologues of the hard left, it's a club to use against anyone who questions their theories or causes. For dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, it's a way to denigrate an attitude as morally corrosive.

You're right that the overwhelming majority of Canadians today believe women should be able to do anything men can, and should stand as equals under the law and in personal liberty. However, there are fundamental disagreements over the source of enduring gender disparities in all sorts of behaviours and outcomes, and how they should be addressed.

A great many on the left hold to the myth of the blank slate, where we're born in a state of innocence and any differences in behaviour stem only from cultural biases, and if we change those biases we can shape behaviour to be anything we like. To them, differences in children's scores in math and sciences are a cultural relic that can be redressed by encouraging more girls to take an interest in those subjects. Those people tend to remain silent on the issue of why girls far outstrip boys in reading, writing, and overall educational attainment, from kindergarten right through to participation in post-secondary education, nor do you see them championing campaigns to get more boys and young men reading or staying in school.

Then there's the odious and fundamentally illiberal 'check your privilege' model of social discourse, where we are all put into boxes of gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, and then ranked according to a hierarchy of perceived power. Under this model, a feminist is someone who recognizes that in any dispute between women and men, individually and collectively, women are oppressed and thus have the moral high ground. Fortunately, this outlook doesn't extend much beyond university campuses and the more flaky regions of the internet. However, such a threat to the liberal traditions of reason, open discourse, and individual freedom needs to be watched carefully and challenged whenever it creeps into public policy.

Like most ideologies, self-avowed feminists has a tendency to simplify in order to present the starkest possible choices and the easiest answers. So the persistence of income disparity between men and women must stem from patriarchal chauvinism in the hiring process, and not something as complex as marriage and child-rearing choices (single women who have never married earn 98 per cent of what single men who have never married earn), or innate gender differences in risk-taking behaviour (which help explain why the very poorest and the homeless are disproportionately male). Nor are more nuanced looks at things such as who actually spends money as opposed to who earns it welcome among the ideologues.

It's worth noting that a great many women - including liberal women - do not self-identify as feminists, owing to the ideological baggage associated with the movement. I don't know too many mothers of both a boy and a girl who feel any less concerned about their son's future than their daughter's, or who are willing to overlook the challenges facing boys and young men and champion only the interests of their daughters.

[Daradon]

Well, there's knowledge and effort too, and how that might play into the semantics. I'm sure most of us would agree with the basic tenants of feminism. But we don't always practice them, in fact often engaging in misogynistic practices, beliefs, and habits. One doesn't even have to leave this forum to see that in action. It's a lot like the difference between people who say I'm a Christian, and I'm a practicing Christian. Many people claim to be Christian do so just because they are baptized, they don't even go to church. Which is technically true, but missing the point entirely.

Trudeau may have simply been saying that not only does he believe in feminism, but he actually practices it. By promoting it and doing the best to live the tenants. I would suggest, that a lot of people who say they believe in feminist ideals, don't understand them, follow them, or spend any time thinking about them.

(And yes, accepting that no one is going to be perfect all the time, just like even practicing Christians break commandments from time to time.)

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

or innate gender differences in risk-taking behaviour (which help explain why the very poorest and the homeless are disproportionately male).

I think there's a very different reason as to why the poorest and homeless are disproportionately male.

[PsYcNeT]

It would be folly to ignore the three waves of feminism however, and most casual persons who refer to themselves as "feminists" tend to be referring to second wave feminism.

To paint all self-avowed feminists as third-wavers is a bit disingenuous, despite the relative accuracy of CliffFletcher's above post.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I think there's a very different reason as to why the poorest and homeless are disproportionately male.

... ?

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It would be folly to ignore the three waves of feminism however, and most casual persons who refer to themselves as "feminists" tend to be referring to second wave feminism.

To paint all self-avowed feminists as third-wavers is a bit disingenuous, despite the relative accuracy of CliffFletcher's above post.

You're right, I don't think most people who call themselves feminists hew to the third wave party line. But it does irk me when your more mainstream and reasonable progressives (and this goes for conservatives as well) bite their tongue and let the zealots and kooks hold court without challenging them. If we stopped giving people a pass just because they're broadly speaking 'on our side,' we might be able to get past the rhetoric and engage in rational dialogue about these issues.

[rayne008]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What does it mean today? Whatever someone saying it wants it to mean. For a politician or public figure, it means you want women to like you. For the ideologues of the hard left, it's a club to use against anyone who questions their theories or causes. For dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, it's a way to denigrate an attitude as morally corrosive.

You're right that the overwhelming majority of Canadians today believe women should be able to do anything men can, and should stand as equals under the law and in personal liberty. However, there are fundamental disagreements over the source of enduring gender disparities in all sorts of behaviours and outcomes, and how they should be addressed.

A great many on the left hold to the myth of the blank slate, where we're born in a state of innocence and any differences in behaviour stem only from cultural biases, and if we change those biases we can shape behaviour to be anything we like. To them, differences in children's scores in math and sciences are a cultural relic that can be redressed by encouraging more girls to take an interest in those subjects. Those people tend to remain silent on the issue of why girls far outstrip boys in reading, writing, and overall educational attainment, from kindergarten right through to participation in post-secondary education, nor do you see them championing campaigns to get more boys and young men reading or staying in school.

Then there's the odious and fundamentally illiberal 'check your privilege' model of social discourse, where we are all put into boxes of gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, and then ranked according to a hierarchy of perceived power. Under this model, a feminist is someone who recognizes that in any dispute between women and men, individually and collectively, women are oppressed and thus have the moral high ground. Fortunately, this outlook doesn't extend much beyond university campuses and the more flaky regions of the internet. However, such a threat to the liberal traditions of reason, open discourse, and individual freedom needs to be watched carefully and challenged whenever it creeps into public policy.

Like most ideologies, self-avowed feminists has a tendency to simplify in order to present the starkest possible choices and the easiest answers. So the persistence of income disparity between men and women must stem from patriarchal chauvinism in the hiring process, and not something as complex as marriage and child-rearing choices (single women who have never married earn 98 per cent of what single men who have never married earn), or innate gender differences in risk-taking behaviour (which help explain why the very poorest and the homeless are disproportionately male). Nor are more nuanced looks at things such as who actually spends money as opposed to who earns it welcome among the ideologues.

It's worth noting that a great many women - including liberal women - do not self-identify as feminists, owing to the ideological baggage associated with the movement. I don't know too many mothers of both a boy and a girl who feel any less concerned about their son's future than their daughter's, or who are willing to overlook the challenges facing boys and young men and champion only the interests of their daughters.

Nothing to add, other than I admire how you were able to summarize a complicated topic into a few easy to read paragraphs that even a slub like me could understand and gain knowledge from.

I seem to be very oblivious to a number of social issues.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I don't know enough about Raitt but it isn't Rempel's time yet. I like her, for the most part, and she is strong and aggressive and will go toe to toe with anyone but I just can't see the party rallying around her as the leader.

Red Tory. Do not want.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Red Tory. Do not want.

That's how they're going to win an election.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

And then this: What I am most interested in (in Trudeau's 'gamergate' 'stand') were his 'I am a feminist' comments. Maybe this needs it's own discussion thread too lol. The dictionary definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." If that is the definition, aren't like 99% of us feminists? If I where to be asked if I was a feminist, I would respond by saying I absolutely strongly advocate political, economic and social equality. I don't think that's exactly what Trudeau (or a large portion of those who use the term feminist) mean.
What is it supposed to mean, now, to be a feminist?
...

Yes, most people believe men and women should have equal rights, and so they're feminists. They can choose to use that label or not, but they fall under the definition.



From the interview, I gather Trudeau is saying that he's an advocate for equal rights and he'll be working towards equality in different situations throughout his mandate (he did mention wanting a 50/50 caucus if possible). I don't find that weird/shocking/whatever.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CliffFletcher]

I think we need to find a new word for people who are concerned about gender equality - maybe one that isn't derived from one gender. That would also help us distinguish between those who are concerned about issues that negatively both men and women, from those who seem concerned only with issue that negatively affect women.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Scrambler

If anyone's interested, you can track Trudeau and the Liberal government on how they are doing with their election campaign platform/promises here: https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

"The TrudeauMetre is a non-partisan collaborative citizen initiative that tracks his performance with regards to his electoral platform."

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

That slacker is only 1.1% of the way into his platform, and I really feel the Canada Post of decision is an emotional one that is being made for the wrong reasons. He can't even find a good idea to start with.

[ae118]

Except that generally we're talking about women lacking equality (of course that isn't good for men either). So, "feminism". That's also why it's #BlackLivesMatter and the #AllLivesMatter people were roundly criticized for missing the point.

Anyway, it's in the dictionary. Maybe in time it'll change. Or hopefully, we won't need it anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ae118]

Originally Posted by #-3

That slacker is only 1.1% of the way into his platform, and I really feel the Canada Post of decision is an emotional one that is being made for the wrong reasons. He can't even find a good idea to start with.

I can't tell on my phone - is this in green font?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wormius]

What kind of money is being spent on community mail boxes vs door to door delivery. Was the economics of that ever revealed to the public?

[Flamenspiel]

Hey, it's in the Liberal promise book. This will be a good test for the Liberals, it was obviously something put forth to get the postal unions on board the campaign and secure the Quebec vote.

[Fuzz]

I thought I had read an article a while ago that said it wasn't going to make all that much difference in funding to Canada Post, and it was an ideological move. Even the shortfall for a year or so was fudged to make it look like they were in trouble. Might have to hunt for that, after coffee.....

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Wormius

What kind of money is being spent on community mail boxes vs door to door delivery. Was the economics of that ever revealed to the public?

The study found door-to-door mail delivery is the most expensive method. The average annual cost per address for door-to-door is $269 versus group mailbox which costs $117.

http://humbernews.ca/canada-post-doo...-mailboxes-in/

[CliffFletcher]

n

Originally Posted by ae118

Except that generally we're talking about women lacking equality (of course that isn't good for men either).

Except that personally, I don't find that to be a galvanizing issue on its own.
Again, why should I care more about the bad things that are likely to affect my daughter because she's a girl more than I care about the bad things that are likely to affect my son because he's a boy? As a boy, he's three times more likely to be removed from class for bad behaviour. Six times more likely to be prescribed with a drug to control his behaviour. Less likely to get honours at every grade of school. More likely to drop out. Less likely to go to university. Less likely to read when he grows up. About eight times more likely to go to jail. Three times more likely to be murdered. Five times more likely to be homeless. Far more likely to be killed or injured on the job. Three times more likely to commit suicide.

It's disheartening that so many people are incapable of thinking in universal principles, and get sucked into manichean us vs them thinking, and the emotional appeal of narratives of heroes of villains, victims and oppressors. Even if I thought that, in the wash, the negative outcomes women in Canada suffer from today for being women are worse than the negative outcomes men in Canada suffer from for being men (though given the realities I cited above, I'm not confident that's the case), why does that mean I should care only about the one and not about the other? And the believe the one kind of disparity should be politicized and the other ignored?

I suppose it's unlikely we'll ever see a politician eschew tribalism (whether it's rooted in ethnicity, gender, or class) and appeal to universal principles and values. But this is getting off-topic so I'll leave it at that. If anyone wants to discuss the merits of feminism as a political movement in 2015, they can start a thread.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

n

Except that personally, I don't find that to be a galvanizing issue on its own.
Again, why should I care more about the bad things that are likely to affect my daughter because she's a girl more than I care about the bad things that are likely to affect my son because he's a boy? As a boy, he's three times more likely to be removed from class for bad behaviour. Six times more likely to be prescribed with a drug to control his behaviour. Less likely to get honours at every grade of school. More likely to drop out. Less likely to go to university. Less likely to read when he grows up. About eight times more likely to go to jail. Three times more likely to be murdered. Five times more likely to be homeless. Far more likely to be killed or injured on the job. Three times more likely to commit suicide.

I'd be super happy to participate in a feminism-specific thread, but I would point out that most of us who identify as feminists would make the claim that the issues which your son faces - which are valid and serious concerns - are issues which stem from the patriarchal nature of the system in which he is being brought up, and which we, to speak very broadly, wish to change.