WE Can TOO!

Got this idea from DAMMIT JANET!

I’m positively excited about this week of politics in Canada.  THAT really says something.  I can’t remember the last time …

Don’t Back Down

James Laxer on making the brouhaha something more than just a brouhaha – and the consequences of not doing so:

If the Conservatives manage to salvage their hold on government, the retribution they will inflict on each of the opposition parties will be a terrible one. Stephen Harper does not deal well with what he interprets as public humiliation. Here’s a guy who can’t even attend the annual Press Gallery dinner in Ottawa because he’d have to lampoon himself and people might laugh at him. Lacking a sense of humour, which means a sense of proportion, he is not well-suited to political life in a democracy where give and take is of the essence.
The only thing this man understands is conquest, which is why even the members of his own party don’t really like him.
If the Liberals decide to let Harper wriggle out of this one, they will have exchanged the substance of victory for a Pyrrhic victory.
Making a coalition work will not be easy for either the Liberals or the NDP. What will unite them though is that they are on the same side of the fence when it comes to the need for a serious stimulus package to cope with the economic crisis. Oddly enough, keeping the Bloc onboard may prove to be not so challenging. The Bloc will claim credit for the portion of the stimulus package that goes to Quebec, and they will be rid of Harper’s noxious agenda on culture, crime, and gun control, an agenda that Quebeckers hate with a passion.
The Liberals, NDP and the Bloc can either hang together or they will hang separately.

Read the whole thing here

And see this Laxer post on Harper’s economic mismanagement and why that is the reason to bring this government down.

QotD

From Glenn Greenwald:

What happened in the U.S. over the last eight years is about much, much more than what “the Bush administration” did.  It begins there, but responsibility in the post 9/11-era is much more diffuse and collective than that.  Shoveling it all off on the administration that is leaving, while exonerating our culpable media and political institutions that remain, isn’t merely historically inaccurate and unfair, though it is that.  Allowing that revisionism also ensures that the critical lessons that ought to be learned will instead be easily and quickly forgotten when similar episodes occur here in the future.

Canadian Politics

Well, thanks to the hubris of Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, politics are interesting in these parts.  I feel all hopey-changey.  C’mon Canada, support that Progressive Coalition and force Harper out of office – or at least make him pay attention to democracy!

Cathie has an excellent round-up of what Canadian Progressive bloggers are saying here

And here’s a petition to sign and send along to everyone you might know, urging a Progressive Coalition – go on now – sign the petition and pass it on!  Finally, there’s something we can do for ourselves in this country.  More people voted for the NDP and the Bloc than voted for the Conservatives – let’s find them.

Happy Thanksgiving

To my American friends.

This blog is taking a four day break.  See you on Sunday!

A Great Idea

From YWCA Canada:

The Rose campaign is a national advocacy campaign to end violence against women and girls. The Campaign takes its name from the original Rose Button, created almost 20 years ago to commemorate 14 young women who were murdered at l’Ecole Polytechnique, by calling for a national action plan on violence against women and promoting strategies to stop violence in our communities.The new Rose button has been redesigned by Joss Maclennan, the designer of the original button, with a take action messaging that indicates that we can all work towards stopping violence in our communities. Violence Against Women in Canada

Violence against women is the world’s largest and most persistent human rights violation, and Canada is no exception. Over 50% of Canadian women will experience violence at some point in their lives, the majority before they turn 25. In most cases, women know their abuser.

 

The federal government estimates the direct medical costs of violence against women at $1.1 billion per year, plus $4 billion a year for criminal justice, social services, and lost productivity. 

In Canada:

 

• Over 31,000 incidents of spousal violence against women were reported to police in 2006, and it’s estimated that over 70% of incidents go unreported.
• Women are more likely than men to be the victims of the most severe forms of intimate partner abuse, such as homicide, sexual assault and stalking.
• Almost 40% of women in Canada who reported assault by an intimate partner said their children witnessed the violence. In half of those cases, the woman feared for her life.
• The devastating count of missing and murdered Aboriginal women points to a deep-seated gendered and racialized violence in our culture that impacts both Aboriginal women and women of colour.

What you can do to Take Action on Violence Against Women:

Speak up about violence in your community

Encourage people who commit violence to get help

Teach girls to protect and empower themselves

Raise children who can resolve conflict without violence

Make sure your home, workplace and community are safe for women and girls

Speak out against negative media images of women and girls

Promote women’s economic and political equality

Donate your time and resources to organizations that work to end violence against women

Remember

Canada needs a national action plan to end violence against women and girls

Ending violence against women requires a major societal shift in our country. To prevent violence before it starts, it must be treated as unacceptable behaviour whenever and wherever it occurs. Women need full equality in practise, not just in law. That means equal pay, not 73 cents of each dollar earned by men. More than a third of families led by single mothers live below the poverty line. Women need the ability to establish independent, violence-free households. Governments can make this easier to achieve by ensuring that women:

can place their children in affordable, high-quality child care and find employment

find affordable, safe housing when they leave the shelter system, or when they need to leave an unsafe home

have enough financial support to raise their children.

Our commitment

As part of our commitment to end violence against women and children, YWCA Canada has been the national distributor of the Rose Button since 1991. To date, YWCA Canada has distributed over 400,000 Rose Buttons to schools, shelters, social and government agencies, socially responsible corporations and individuals across Canada.

 Want to show your support?

Take action on violence against women by making Rose Buttons, bookmarks and brochures available to your employees, clients, community partners and stakeholders. The Rose Button Campaign is a great fundraising opportunity for groups and organizations that support anti-violence programs and services. Purchase the buttons for 50 cents each and sell them for $1.00 or more.

. For further information, you can also contact YWCA Canada at:

Email: national@ywcacanada.ca
Tel: 416-962-8881
Fax: 416-962-8084  

 

 Want to place an order?

To place an order, click here for English or here for French 

 

Why December 6?

December 6 is Canada’s National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. In 1989, when 14 women were shot to death in Montreal by a man deliberately targeting women on a busy campus, Canadians reacted with shock, sorrow and outrage. A strong lobby formed to bring guns under control in Canada, work that continues to this day.

 December 6 is the day we remember the women who died and re-commit to taking action on violence against women and girls – because Canada is not yet a safe country for women. 

Patriarchy in Sheep’s Clothing

WTF?  From Penney Kome at Straight Goods:

[George] Lakoff maintains that we all think in metaphors, rather than in issues or even in words. And our earliest experiences with governance occur through the metaphor of family life. After months of studying political language, he had an epiphany that the active metaphor in American politics is the family.

George Bush and the Republicans appealed to the yearning many people feel for a “strict father” to protect them and tell them what to do. This strategy encouraged divisiveness and competition between regions and racial groups, and heightened public fears about terrorism, so that people would look to the strict father to take care of them, and to keep the family in line.

Conversely, Barack Obama’s campaign embodied the “nurturant parent” who encourages people to put their best foot forward and take care of themselves. He expressed confidence in the American people and welcomed the public’s participation in shaping his campaign. He talked openly about empathy and compassion, and reaching beyond divisiveness. Implicitly and explicitly, Obama’s campaign refuted all the scare tactics of the “strict father” campaign, and encouraged nurturing (that is, maternal) behaviour.

In other words — and this idea took a while to sink in, even for this committed feminist — Obama’s victory represents an overthrow of patriarchy, if only temporarily.

I confess, I’ve not read George Lakoff so I guess I shouldn’t critisize.  But just on the basis of what Kome has said he said, what kind of breakthrough was it that he had about “the family” being the metaphoric lens through which Americans practice politics?  This is a breakthrough?  He ought to have read some latter-day feminist work [see FN 7 here for good sources] on the traditional, nuclear hetero-family written a few decades ago.  Some of that work followed from Wilhelm Reich’s belief that “the family” was generally repressive and responsible for the formation of authoritarian character structure.  Anyway …

Lakoff’s claim (if this really is his claim) and Kome’s is utter nonsense.  There is more than one pattern for the traditional, heteonormative family.  Check out those kinder, gentler beneficent patriarchs who wear velvet gloves on their iron fists, whose power might sometimes be masked or sold softly, but nevertheless remains intact.  Yes folks, patriarchy can be subtle – in fact, things might work “better” that way – if you can get people to subject themselves to authority willingly, without physical coercion, you save a lot of time and energy and likely, weave stronger bonds.

If Obama was about overthrowing the patriarchy, even temporarily, how come he let Hillary Clinton drown in sexist, misogynist crap?  Why didn’t he pound a few heads for her?  As it turns out, Hillary is only allowed to be successful through Obama, as his potential Secretary of State.  Note – Secretary.  He’s the boss.  Maybe he’ll be a nice guy and not demand that she bring him coffee, but that doesn’t call for a celebration of the end of patriarchy.

I’m not sure if this is Lakoff or Kome - I guess it’s Lakoff through Kome:

Strict fathers do dare to discipline — that is, they are punitive, thus leading to the USA’s skyrocketing incarceration rate [under George W. Bush].

This is a completely nutty idea.  The USA’s skyrocketing incarceration rate began with the massive suffering, waste and injustice of Ronald Reagan’s war on drugs.  Another iron-fists-in-velvet-gloves kinda guy. 

More:

Obama achieved the goal of framing issues his own way. He doesn’t say, “progressive” or “liberal”, he says, “American”. He doesn’t say, “equality”, he says, “Yes, we can.” To counter some Republican frames, he qualifies his answers. For example, he said he was opposed to late-term abortions — except to save the life or health of the mother, which would be the only conditions under which most doctors would even consider such a procedure. He speaks softly and lets his actions tell the story.

Obama doesn’t say “progressive” or “liberal” because he doesn’t mean “progressive” or “liberal”.  He is neither.  He calls himself “American” because he doesn’t want to say he’s mildly to the left of Republican  [Besides, since so many people were saying he was un-American, he really needed to pound on that word]. He doesn’t say “equality” because he doesn’t mean “equality”.  What the hell does “Yes we can” mean when it comes to equality?  And Obama betrayed women when he said he would only favour third trimester abortions in cases where a woman’s life was in danger.  That is not the only circumstance in which doctors perform third trimester abortions.  Obama said that abortion should be a matter between a woman, her doctor, her family (read “husband” unless you think he meant women should consult with their fathers as well) and her pastor.  That is a deeply patriarchal position and one that was and is deeply disturbing to most feminists I know.

This just blows my mind.  Since when does being good Daddy = the end of patriarchy? 

I’m off to read some Lakoff.

Is Obama A New Kind of Politician?

At Barack Obama’s press conference today, he said this, in part:

Fifty-five days before his inauguration, Obama defended his selection of former Clinton officials to help run his administration.

“The American people would be troubled if I selected a treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever,” Obama said.

More on the press conference here

Well yes, Barack, but you said your lack of experience was not an impediment to your Presidential aspirations.  Or did you say you have lots of experience yourself, so you’re better than Sen Clinton who spent her time as First Lady attending tea parties?  Oh, speaking of which, I notice you’ve chosen her to be your Secretary of State – geez, I’m surprised.  Umm, she has no foreign policy experience, Barack.  Or so you said.  Gee, your approach is so, ummm, ”refreshing”. 

And Barack, you said you’d make a better President than Hillary because she was tied-in to the old hack-job Washingtonian Clinton political establishment.  Some people believed you.  But now you’re hiring the old hack-job Washingtonian Clintonista political establishment shitheads who had no trouble extending Reaganomic/Friedman-freakynomic policies to such an extent that they are deeply implicated in the present economic debacle, i.e. Larry fuckin’ Summers and Tim Geithner.

Now if you were just a regular politician, none of this would merit comment.  Political expediency, political cynicism, all that.  But you said you were different, Barack.  And you’re not; you’re just not.  You’re a modestly intelligent man whose political stripe falls considerably to the right of Sen. Clinton’s and now you’re trying to cover your colours, hoping we won’t notice how blue you’re looking these days.

I wanted to believe you were “different”, Barack.  I’m glad I  never did.  I’m still angry with you though.  Yeah, alright, you’re better than John McCain.  Big fuckin’ changey-hopey whoop!

Endnote:  Maybe it’s not so much that Obama is a new kind of politician as that he’s simply more folksy/articulate and wiley than any politician we’ve seen since, well, Bill Clinton.

Maybe Ralph Nader was right in predicting that the same Wall Street hustlers would have a lock on our government no matter which major party won the election. I hate to admit it, since it wasn’t that long ago that I heatedly challenged Nader in a debate on this very point.

Robert Scheer

 

I’m off to stick a few fingers down my throat.

P.S. – Barack, in case you’ve forgotten about the Clinton tea parties, check this out:

It’s that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa.

And Barack, if you want to sort out why your cute tea-drinking fantasy came to mind, check over here

Best Feminist Blog Voting

Hey gentle readers, somehow I got nominated for a Canadian Best Feminist Blog award.  I don’t know who did the nominating and in case I can’t figure it out – a great big thanks.  I’m honoured, deeply honoured, just to be nominated.  Go on over and vote readers – and make sure you check out the other great Canadian feminist sites, all of which are MUCH better than this one, and I mean that.  I rely on them for much of what I do.  It’s simply a wonderful group of female humans!

I Gotta Stop This …

… ’cause I can’t stop anything:

The vast resources the U.S. and Europeans are pouring into ailing financial firms could lead to disastrous consequences for global efforts to reduce poverty and mitigate the impacts of climate change, warns a new study by an independent think tank.

The study, entitled “Skewed Priorities: How the Bailouts Dwarf Other Global Crises”, points out that the U.S and European governments are willing to help financial firms in crisis with more than 4 trillion dollars — an amount estimated to be 40 times higher than what is being spent on measures to fight climate change and poverty.

According to researchers at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, which released the study’s findings Monday, governments of the rich industrialised countries are very likely to use the cost of their financial sector bailouts as an excuse to backtrack on global aid for poverty and climate change financing commitments.

Read this if you want, here

Or, listen to this:

k.d. – ‘crying” – oh YEAH!

be still my pounding heart – or not!