RB

Discrimination is a serious issue. The world of work revolve around a male social contruct still hence the emphasis on uneven balance between the sexes. Men are coming to terms with the demands of women, but still there is much lip service. Its an androcentric world from my view. In order to make it to top jobs it required women to become virtually men. If there was a world seen though the female lens, women would dominate the heights of power and facilitating what we now call speacial needs for women would not be a stuggle and an agenda. 4 women as voices on the nation's highest callings is history. McLachlin has kept a low profile on gender issues. I guess the line is they were hired based on qualification over men to do a good job with no feminist agenda. I would hope though that their voices in numbers are not stifled. But indeed women still have a very long way to make it to the top. I mean you can probably list all the powerful women in the world in one page here that make over 125k. You'd take serveral days to list all the men. Women in politics represent less than 30% on all levels - Conservatives are the worst to discriminate women you keep mentioning the choice of children - as if this CHOICE is the one way, I mean if thats the way life were - we'd never have to worry about the darn abortion debates. The real smart women know they can need to have a career first, be financially stable, then children, when they can support the child independant of these men. The low percentage participating in parental leave would indicate lack of interest in child care or domestic duties. And indeed show the relation between work and family that I previously mention. This is also an opportunity to continue to keep women depressed and away from the workforce and prevent them from accummulating expereince and hours.

This senario was flawed to begin with - it put the genders into their traditional roles. It does not support plans for symmetrical relation where both men and women work and share childcare Nowadays every person would agree that attitutes towards men and women roles in work and house duties should be shared. However the orientation towards these roles differ. What I mean men place less value in assuming house duties - I must have said this before hence the context in which you build your senario. Most women want a balanced life of child and work. But if males were questioned and they answered truthfully, they usually want their mates to stay at home. They then retreat to the traditional role of father as a provider and view child care as female issues. For women the burden of child, or house duties and work conflicts. Her commitment to both is that of superwoman. Lets don't forget the other discrimination part - work also do not support child care. Well there are some changes, but also noted, there is parental leave available for fathers. However the percentage of men taking advantage of this falls below 6%. I can basically claim then that the roles and definitions for both men and women are still ascribe for work and family What I see in your senario is that child care and work are trade offs for women and exist interdependent. Whilst, work and family are independent issues for men I mean what is fair here Regarding you other point of males taking time out to lapse and then returning to work - they will do much better than the females for the mere fact of this perceived notion of provider role.

Let me understand what you mean by this. If a man chooses to stay in a profession and work vs. a woman who decides to leave the workforce and nurture children, how does that make the man a winner? Each has chosen what they value more. How do you measure a winner in this context? In the short term, life must be beautiful without worries for the female, all she has to do is look pretty and domesticated. OK, men are winners for the obvious reason they are current in the labor force and continue with some upward mobility. women who decided to stay are home and away from the labor market and find it difficult to adjust and unable to compete on their return since their skills are outdated and plus their education is not able to match current minimum requirement. that's not all women depend on the men for support financially during the period of staying at home. Trouble is at age 39 and upwards you divorce these women 38% of the time. They then become single parents and they are awarded custody of the children over 60% of the time. So now they are saddled with child care issues, no education, and limited work experience. Not surprising then that 45% of single mothers make between 5-20k. Only 31% would make over 30k this would compare to single males of which 64% of you make 30k and over. a better picture would read something like this 68% of lone-parent family has income 10k or above the LICO compare to 34% female headed family Lesley Harman wrote that in Canada 84% of women will spend part of their adult live without spouses - looking after themselves and children and at every stage of their lives women are more likely to be poor trapped in poverty. I didn't mention women of color, lesbians and aboriginal who are made to feel as if they are the "other" and are discriminated against As long as labor reproduces itself as power and exist in the hands of patriarchy women will remain powerless. So as I said before women need to access those opportunities beyond the glass ceiling in order to enrich their own lives. It is not enough to say women are having education, and are working and be grateful for those privileges. What I can never understood why women decided to use the term "feminism" and give it such a hype as in breaking out of impoverishment. Feminine is such a hopeless, devalued and oppressed word.

Thre is a case ceccol v. ontario gymnastic federation (2201), 55 \\ Ceccol worked for a period under a series of 1 year contract The court looked at the case as to whether the employment relationship is characterized as one lasting for indefinite term of a series of 1-year fixed terms. OK what I mean is "fixed-term contract" under the employment standards act and the common law has traditional protections and where the employment is continuous service by the employee for many years and called contract reads like evasion. So my point to the senario presented whether there are representations to indicate an indefinite-term relationship. For example: The administrative challenge to get contracts renewed on time. I would say if a date is missed, a fixed-term contact becomes a contract for an indefinite term well unless there is automatic renewal of contracts

I don't disagree with your statements at all. But here some observations: That whatever choices men are women make, men are winners. By a huge margin what men do is less determined by women. Whatever men do affects women much more than vice-versa. So men are much less interested in what women do as it really does not impact their choices or behavior. Other the other hand women tend to observe everything men do because it will impact their lives. Men have unearn advantages.

Not everyone who post on this board are males. I am a girl.

Only about 26 percent of women are elected federal judges of 1029, this is the 2002 stats This means that of those 54% female lawyers who have the qualifications to be judge I can draw some conclusion and say that women do not reflect a demographics of judges and are still underrepresented in making partners or higher positions from your stats. OK - this is usually the point I want to make - women are given a chance to enter into a profession but hardly allowed to succeed to be wealthy. I mean if women can secure top jobs as the majority of men do, they can become very independent and obviously they would not depend on men Here is another consideration that tells a story, in 1990-Ontario, 1,372 women sought appointments to the bench, can you explain to me why the number of women applying of recent has dropped to 30 applications. Can I say there is some trend happening that need investigation, plus why is this trend coinciding with the number of women lawyers who are leaving Bay Street after 3 years. You think they are feeling they are not part of the law company’s environment and or maybe they are concluding like me that a law firm is a good place to learn where rules are made and where power rests.

Are you kidding me. Guarantee that women are entering into universities and getting a better education. A huge percentage of females are still concentrated in clerical, and health professions and care giving positions. Plus when they do enter in the professions such as being a doctor, lawyer, engineer, business-women their experiences are totally different from a man. Women still face the glass ceiling and a higher one now. I mean only 11% of women CEO's and executives and you believe we are doing well. The way I see it is all we do is make slight adjustments and continue to perpetuate females in their traditional roles.

I would like to quote Governor-General Clarkson 2003 when she received her honorary degree from Osgoode Law School. She said that the male-dominated rules of the legal world have "wrought havoc on women" obliging many to work equally hard for a fraction of what the male made. " It is not surprising to me that many women find it distinctly uncomfortable after a certain number of year to continue to live within a world which basically grants them certain privileges from the height of a masculine world". Women in professions face the "revolving door syndrome" and plus there is the notion of "mommy track" for the female lawyers I took noted that the law schools are accepting more females but would also like to say that the culture practice in law firms refuse to change. Look, 30% of males make partners while only 13% of women are pipelined to senior management are awarded the same, I mean try making 2,000 billable hours otherwise tough luck and what a shame in some areas of law women make 60% of males salaries. Anyway, since we are talking about discrimination I wanted to mention that the CHRC recieves over 300 sex discrimination complaints each year and 95% of these are filed by females. So while you might want to say women are not struggling I would also point out that a struggle for true equality in not realised and is very far from being over. What I meant is that we might not want to tolerate discrimination, it does not mean we are free from discrimination. Let me ask a question: Do you think there are gender bias against men? oops, you can't quote my stuff I have not reconcile my biases as I am looking through my feminine lens

Sorry, I don't see how this response at all addresses the question asked. If you understand that some men might be uncomfortable, and you are suggesting that clubs provide for this, why not be consistant and advocate that male reporters be allowed into female athlete locker rooms and have the clubs provide for that case as well? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No how you would understand that women would scum at priviledges and look forward to fight for access to rights. If the locker rooms are where the real stories are told, then as far as I am concern reporting from the men’s locker should have no gender. Instead what we see is yourself arguing that to preserve a male domain. I will draw some conclusion from the link you posted, that when a women enters into the tryrannical domain of cruel men she is an alien. I can also tell you what men do to each other: - older males oppress and intimidate younger mates - older males groom favorable males for succession - this means that other males are punished and discriminated against Also means that men are cruel to each other, it also means that this is a consturction of a corporate culture for men, means that men seek to keep out outsiders i.e. women. Also means that men are cruel to some men but cruel to all women. Let me paint the picture – put a woman into this male cruel corporate culture and see how they struggle. You see women have no alternative but joining the masculine elite on their terms - hence enter the boys locker. I don’t know where this line came from but I quote that women have no idea how much men hate them. As I gathered a woman trying to influence even a small change is met with serious resistance. In my opinion women who have emerge leaders in any male domain, politics, business, a traditional profession and even entering the boys locker room, do so because she is stronger than the men in their sphere. She is a professional despite the males display and crude behaviour Men have dominated and created their own unfree and cruel world of work and wealth. I don't think the males want to enter a female locker other than to count pubic hair. Women on the other hand, have to set their aspiration to the male status quo in order to be successful.

well all those prohibited grounds for discrimination tells the story that groups are not accessing services and nor buying services in fact Canadians might as well be replishing constantly a dried out social system and increasing taxes for LINK, ESL, international professional program, health care Look at it this way, in Toronto there are 55% immigrants Toronto sits as a financial trading centre of Canada. Here is whats happening all of minority folks will say to you that they have experience discrimination in a recent past. Its not about LINK or a professional designation, its about systemic discrimination. These minorities wind up with survival jobs. And we are hoping and relying that these new people will uphold the Toronto economy. For the financial district, well, companies decide bigger is better, so merging with each other and getting bigger, this drives a small company out of business - and with no competition big companies set ridiculous price see: Eaton, Bay, Roots, A&P, Jets go A year later those big companies are folding. Well did I allude to Canada losing its identity to immigration. But get it the minorities are discriminated against and fall into proverty with no income to buy your goods and services and usless there is programs like AA you might as well be myopic. In a macro view its not about being favorable to minority groups but using their talents to the full potential to make the economy viable

Ask the business men who conduct business on the golf course why not the office, or the strip club as they did previously Ask our new lawyer friend why women are allowed in the derobing closet You want a deal, want to network, want a story, well, welcome to contemporary ways of making things happen Well I am going by the link you posted and I get the picture. Men want to intimidate women as far as I gathered, some reporters mentioned the players waited for the lady reporter and drop their safely guarded towels. This is from the link you provided: Christina Bergstrom mentions Joanne Ireland, writer for The Edmonton Journal, discussing how players refuse to wear towels even knowing she is present and Linda Stasi tells of how the entire Mets team removed their towels for her on cue and mentions the awkwardness of sitting while watching a room full of "perfectly naked perfect men" standing all around her. I'll buy though that some men might be uncomfortable with a female present and the clubs should provide this

Allowing females to interview male atletes in their locker is about accessing market segregation and about business. Sports is a guy thing. Males still dominate the sports world. A male reporter would not hesitate to enter into the male locker which leaves the female reporters out of the loop. Sports still do not bring big bucks for women compare with men. I didn’t recall hearing male reporters wanted to visit the ladies locker room. There is no market segregation for interviews with the ladies. The other issue is men have historically violated women, and sexually assult women. The lesson is that women still have primitive fears about a strange man looking at naked self. Not the other way around. So opening the doors to female entering the men’s locker is not the same as opening the doors for males entry. The law reminds us about balancing responsibility and rights in sexuality. What I mean is that women are still tangled up and vexed about their sexuality. Plus there is something called dignity of a women. Think again if you really believe that all the women prance around in the nude in the ladies. There are plenty of private washrooms available in the women locker room to satisfy a need, because women still hide their naked self, and are secretive, and very private if you didn’t know all of this. To breech this private domain is a violation So until there is this new order of sexuality and we can recoin a woman’s nakedness I don’t think allowing men into female locker is a good think.

Well I confess for ordinary people like myself its all frightening - I mean this is how the terrorist wish the people to be I catched the up to date news and learnt that the US is increasing its security on the subways and doing random checks on passengers And I wondered what Canada is doing - but then I got to thinking that we Canadians don't have to worry much these extremist folks live here..really

There are Bona fide exemptions where discrimination is allowed. The right to be free of discrimination is not absolute - what I mean is that even intentional discrimination is permissible. For example: special service organisation that serves the very people of the identified 15 groups in the human rights code: sex, creed, age etc. can required that preferences be given to those member groups e.g. recreational centre may choose to allow men only to work in the men locker room, a batter women's shelter can choose women only counselors I think the women's only fitness centre would fall under special exemption in order to relief this disadvantage group because women typically suffer from discrimination on the basis of multiple prohibited grounds. A woman fitness group is bono fide. I think what you are objecting to is whether men can be accommodated in a women's fitness centre. And the answer is that centres should operate in good faith and whether the code gives a right for a duty to accommodate men or no duty to accommodate in the women's fitness club. All in all men still have few more quids than women and a women fitness club will not suffer men or deter men from closing deals and making business connection. This is fair. In this instance the law does not see women as a threat to men. It would be an unfair comparison to line up a gentleman lounge in the country clubs and golf club membership to women's fitness programs though. Discrimination is blatant when women cannot access the golf clubs, football clubs, gentlement clubs - this is because they are not in the loop for network connection and cannot access resouces to further their potential.

August1991 could you put political figures chart on the link - puts it into perspective

Please don’t misread the thread. The London bombing is so recent and is difficult for everyone. I read there are retaliation and outrages for the attacks on the Muslims. But also there is much publicity of condemnation of the bombings by Muslim groups. This is not an open opportunity to vent ridiculous opinions or show hostility to Muslims or other groups. We have a vibrant mix of all cultures who are valuable and who contribute to society. It is an innocent question. I just wondered about your everyday encounters.

I mean do they feel alienated from mainstream groups and think there is some justification for terrors carried out. Well, I could have been easily fooled. See, this gal at work tells me Muslims are targets and scapegoats for the terror in London. Muslims are used as a cover-up based and analogous to the finding of weapons of mass destruction from the war on Iraq.

If there was ever a time that I support the war in Iraq it is now. Freeing the people in the Middle East also means that countries that promote democracy does not have to suffer vulnerabilities of those who make claims that Islam is a religion of Terror. Those terrorists are drawing their strength from the middle east and the way to eliminate this terror is to eliminate the root of terror. I mean the general view is that the US, London had this coming. I was in London on Thursday; it was a very scary experience. With no regards for human life, these terrorist are fearful. I don't know that people deseve what was coming, smoking and cleaning out terror just means people deserve a lot better.

Eureka Yes, but you forgot to mention that you can still campaign and run independently and win

Alberta has the youngest population in Canada and is doing excellent promoting competition, trade. Well, that’s why Alberta is so relaxed in its labor laws. Firstly, one can say well the kids need work experience to begin. No skill means much longer time to secure employment, start 'em young. Also I noted that the youths that are juggling classes and work will stay in school for a longer period – I mean who takes on the cost burden then? My issue with kids working too early is that they displace adult workers. Look, most youths (anyone under 30) who are not in school would like to have some permanent arrangement. A 12 year old would be ok with some non-standard working arrangements plus it is incorporated into their school schedule. Nevertheless, those conditions foster and lowers employment expectation for those seeking a job to survive. I mean if there is surplus school children available for work the market becomes saturated and employers choose. I looked at the stats and 75% of this non-standard arrangements belong to the youth groups and 100% of the youths who are not attending school do not like this arrangement. Since I like to compare the women and men in employment issues, I can also tell you that 51% of these non-standard working arrangements is allocated to women, 37% is to men - somehow the men seem to secure some permanency Most accidents also occur with youth group especially in the first year of work, I would probably vote to have a Union representing youths so that we can differentiate workers, seniority, and serious workers and hold on to opportunities for those youths who are looking for some job security in times of reorganization.

I mean she is a public figure now, if that was her aim, a celibraty. I can conclude that intelligence, education and the other usual qualities of being analytical, having a vision, etc. is traditional leadership qualities And perhaps Belinda is an emerging new breed of leadership for politics - hey she is doing very well. And perhaps there is something called self-motivation (changing sides), self-awareness (capitalizing on her personal traits), it is what I call emotional intelligence – having empathy for the masses of loyal people – she will do well as she is continues tapping into her social pool (oops Freudian slip - I meant social skill). The liberals are progressive in their ideas and they see that a person can be a leader, just surround them with distinguished and outstanding performers. Argus, if you have experience working with goverment you do know that every employee is successful and no one loses - also means Belinda is a winner.

Maybe some of you are just plain jealous of this lady. She plays to win - and she does.

I wish we can have a lady in politics that has courage, much smarts, and is a leader.

Most professors have an agenda that they try to push onto the impressionable. For example they write the text books for a particular course (agenda) and plus they profit off the kids But, I would like to know when would the professor take time out to learn about "a" student political belief (the universities in Toronto are astonishingly huge) I think discrimination is far too sophisticated and subtle nowadays, it is well more difficult to prove as professors are well aware of consequences. Is there a particular incident or case you wanted to bring up?