kimmy

Nova Scotia's new found prosperity takes this idea out of the realm of the ridiculous to merely the absurd. It is important to keep in mind that the entire province of Nova Scotia has fewer people than even the smallest NHL cities. Edmonton, Calgary, and Buffalo all have about 1.2 million people in their metropolitan areas; the whole province of Nova Scotia has only 75% of that. The Halifax metropolitan area has only 400,000 ...about 1/3 the size of the smallest NHL cities. NASCAR is for yokels. -k

She has always been comfortable talking about Alaska's energy issues. She looks so again. She has always come across well talking about her family, and in particular in fighting back against what she perceives as the media being unfair to her family. She again does well in this. I don't think her speaking ability has ever been in doubt... she has a Ralph Klein-like ability to talk to Joe Average in a way that makes him feel like she understands him. I think even her harshest critics would agree with that much. During the election, her Achilles' Heel was in having anything of substance to say on issues of any complexity. While this interview does play to her strengths, and reminds viewers of what gave her such star power in the first place, it doesn't do anything to answer the biggest question about her as a national-level political figure: does she know enough about the issues? -k

What's so "post modern" about the "notwithstanding clause"? If that's the definition of a "postmodern state", then the distinction of being a "postmodern state" is completely inane. Paul Martin didn't put the "notwithstanding clause" in the constitution anyway, so I can't imagine what he has to do with Canada being "postmodern". -k

The unstoppable red machine ... stopped! On home ice! What an amazing game, and amazing result. Not many people thought the Penguins would win before the series, probably almost nobody still thought they would win after game 5... but they did it. With Crosby and Malkin almost completely shut down by the Wings for the final 2 games, the Penguins' grinders and plumbers and unknowns stepped up and just flat-out outworked the Red Wings. And what a terrific goaltending performance by Marc Andre Fleury. After getting torched in game 5, he came back to play the best games of his life in games 6 and 7. That's the stuff of champions. -k

What do you mean "these days", Jerry? This stuff has been considered big comedy since the moving picture was invented. By contrast, I assert that the sensationalization of sexual violence in both entertainment and news reportage is much more recent. And, accordingly, a reason why women may be more worried about their personal safety than they might have been 30 years ago. I doubt television has men more worried that they'll encounter a Three Stooges eye-poke than they were 30 years ago. However, I think women are probably more worried that they could be raped than they were 30 years ago. If you wish to make some effort to parallel sit-com slapstick with the increasingly graphic sexual violence that now passes for mainstream entertainment, perhaps you should start another thread on the topic. -k

At least we're together on that much. Sadly, it seems as if many women seem to think it is not a joke but a matter of justice. I don't think I've ever said "girl jobs" don't have any value. The jobs themselves have value, or they wouldn't exist. However, the *idea* of "girl jobs" has to go. If one wants women (as a group) to earn more (as a group), the answer is not to artificially boost the salary of "girl jobs" through some kind of government intervention, but to get women (as a group) to pick better-paying careers. There's no such thing as a complete meritocracy. There is always politics and favoritism. Personally, however, my sense is that gender plays much less of a role in that than some would have us believe. When I observe non-performance-related prejudice and bias against a worker, it's invariably because he's got an abrasive personality, an entitled attitude, poor personal hygiene, or that sort of thing. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about the gender of those who try to undermine me and "put me in my place" in my life, Molly, and I assure you, it's not men. And again, I feel the only thing keeping a young woman out of traditionally male fields is the barrier between her ears. -k

A distinction you don't seem to recognize, tango, is that the trucker convoy and farmer tractor protests are one-time events. They make a nuisance of themselves for one afternoon, then take their rigs or tractors back home. The Tamil protests, by contrast, were an on-going blitz. Native blockades have often run weeks or months, sometimes isolating whole communities in the process. You look completely disingenuous in ignoring that aspect of it. Had the farmers or truckers staged an ongoing series of road blockages, peoples' patience for them would have been exhausted very quickly. A one-time event can be fairly called "raising awareness". An ongoing campaign to make people miserable until you get your way isn't "raising awareness", it's extortion. -k

Wow, you managed to find a handful of cases where foster parents have harmed children in their care. And you've found some people claiming that kids are sometimes taken away unfairly. Congratulations. None of that disputes the fact that there are children who need to be rescued from incompetent or abusive parents. -k

Who says there's no way to cure it? Putting a child in the hands of more capable parents gives the child a chance of succeeding. Leaving a child in a deplorable situation is unconscionable. Can you provide me comparable statistics for situations where kids are left in homes with unfit, abusive, negligent parents? The kid mentioned who missed 30 days of school because her parents were too drunk to take her to school? What do you think her chances of graduating from high school are if she stays with those parents? Probably lower than 24%. The argument you're making is so misleading: you point to the poor success rate for children where Child Services has intervened, but you have no way of knowing how the same kids would have done if they were left in the dismal situations they were taken from. By the time Child Services gets involved, the children are already in a deep hole. If a child is so visibly messed up that a teacher feels compelled to contact the government, it is very likely that the child is already on the road to ruin. -k

There are some appalling people who simply are not capable of caring for children. There has to be some means of intervening in such cases. We might all have different ideas of at what point the state has to intervene, but I think all of us agree that the state does need to be able to intervene in some circumstances. While the bad outcomes often make the news, I bet that more often than not, the outcome is for the best. -k

I heard the same discussion, or a similar one, on CBC. Among the things mentioned was that the girl had missed over 30 days of school, that there was domestic violence in the house, and that there was substance abuse. However, it is debatable whether any of that on its own would be cause for removing a child from her parents. And it seems unlikely that this action would have happened had the girl not drawn attention to herself by wearing a Swastika to school. And like you, Argus, my first thought was also "well, it's always easy to pick on White Supremacists. But who else could have their kids taken away were this policy applied elsewhere?" My thoughts also went to that family who raised their kids to believe Canadians are drug-addicts and homosexuals. And to parents who took their children to that mosque where the Imam taught that Jews are swine. -k

An additional thought on the premise of this question... I recall once reading a criticism of the MacLean's Universities Rankings studies that comes out every year. The critic of the study was the dean of some prestigious institution, and he questioned the methodology of the rankings based on the amount that students' self-assessment factors into the rankings. Top-notch institutions tend to attract demanding students, he said. Basically, he was pointing out that students at the most prestigious institutions are harder to please. At lesser colleges, the students are happy just to be in college! Of course they think their school is great! They're lucky that they're not at the Lucy Jameson Academy of Hair and Nails Technology or the DynoWut Computer School getting a 3 month diploma in computer literacy. And they can't believe how awesome it is to go to a school that has A BAR right on the school grounds! How gnarly is that!! At top schools, the students are likely to be the ones who look at the laboratories and find the equipment is outdated, or that the software they're learning is no longer used in industry, or that the teaching assistant in their class isn't much help to anybody who can't speak Farsi, and that sort of thing. "I busted my ass to get the grades to get into this school! And *this* is what I get? I should have gone to frickin McGill!!!" I suspect women today may also be more demanding than their moms. I know that my own mom was reasonably satisfied just to live in a house that had an actual flush-toilet and a husband who could afford to keep the liquor cabinet stocked (although, if you know my mom, you know that's no mean feat.) Me, I'm not as easy to impress. That might not always be a good thing. -k

I'm guessing professional sports might be one. While the actual incidence of violence may not have increased, it seems like reportage of it has increased. It seems like both news and entertainment have sensationalized violence, particularly sexual violence, in a way that it probably wasn't 40 years ago. -k

I think that is largely the case! I certainly can't vouch for everyone, but personally I've seen little evidence of woman haters who've tried to undermine me. I've certainly encountered skeptics, people who've doubted my strength or abilities. They're usually the easiest to impress, in my experience. I quickly proved that I could exceed my male peers (which, frankly, only required being able to show up each day, on-time, and not stoned or drunk ) and have had no unfavorable experiences since. I do feel some amount of pressure to maintain the impression. One time some plastic sheeting slid out from under my feet as I was walking; I went flying base-over-apex and landed on my back... as much as it really hurt, all I allowed myself was to swear about it and laugh... because I couldn't let the guys see me cry. Just couldn't happen. yep! yep! waitaminit whoa. -k

Yes. Trust me, I know of what I speak. -k

I did once have to use kim-jitsu on a temp who became hostile after I told him to put away his cell-phone and do some work. He didn't last long. I suspect he'd have been a tremendously crappy employee for a male supervisor as well. Regardless, that's an issue of workplace standards and/or employment discrimination law, not a justification for "equal pay for work of equal value". In fact, I would go so far as to say that "equal pay for work of equal value" is a big fat slap in the face to those of us who *have* braved the world of "men's work". Additionally, it would undermine the whole point. Because if "girl jobs" paid just as much as "men's work", then what's the incentive to even try? If you remove the money incentive, you're removing a major incentive for women to venture out of "girl jobs". If that happens, then the concept of "girl jobs" and "men's work" will never disappear. Well, people who choose courageous, risky, difficult, or unconventional paths in life are often those who reap the greatest rewards. Those who take the path of least resistance (whether that resistance comes in the form of hard academic work, peer pressure, financial hardship, changing location, or whatever) are often those who find themselves sitting around wondering why others have gotten more out of life. I think we both recognize that the big barrier keeping women out of science and technology and technical fields is within women themselves. It is certainly unfortunate that most young women look at these career choices and think "that sounds boring" or "that sounds hard" or "that's for nerds". However, that is no reason for the state to intervene in some ridiculous, artificial way as "equal pay for work of equal value" advocates call for. I once spent a whole work-day repairing a receptionist's computer after it had become so infected with spyware, adware, trojan horses, and so-on that it was no longer functional. People generally do not get this sort of malware from visiting websites that most people consider to be central to doing business. I work in a hazardous, strenuous environment that can and does result in injuries and deaths. The only injury she's likely to suffer would come from trying to stuff herself into her size-too-small slacks, tripping while strutting about in high heels trying to catch peoples' attention, or if the water-cooler falls over on her. So, to make a long story short, you agree with me. -k

I feel that most of this is nonsense and hype. I feel that for the most part women who find themselves in "female workplace ghettos" (or whatever "equal pay" advocates call these sorts of jobs) are there through their own choices, not because they were barred or discouraged from entering better-paying fields. It is sexist to assume that the men in male-dominated professions are sexists. My dad and my former special guy of 6 years are both electrical engineers; I've discussed technical fields with them many times; they've both tried to encourage me to enter the field myself. They're not sexist. The people they work with aren't sexist. They tell me that they're more than willing to consider female applicants whenever they get the opportunity, which is frankly not often due to the shortage of applicants. When I was in school, we received a number of presentations from groups trying to promote non-traditional careers for women. I'm sorry to report that after the presentations, when my peers talked among themselves, the general reaction was "giggle, as if." I'm sorry to say it, but in my estimation, the hand has been extended over and over again, and it has been scoffed at. I have worked in construction for 2 years now. I take serious issue with the idea that some academic could at some point in the future sit down and cross reference my work with some traditional female job and conclude "well gee, Kimmy's job doesn't require more education or qualification than this receptionist, so it doesn't seem appropriate that Kimmy earns so much more money." That infuriates me. Because I've seen that lard-ass at work, and she doesn't even earn what she gets paid, let alone what I'm paid. If she doesn't think she's paid fairly compared to what I earn, I challenge her to try a day at my job. -k

Were the characters created in 2009 instead of the 1930s, Betty (the kind, loyal, supportive one) would have been the brunette, and Veronica (the self-absorbed, spoiled, manipulative, mean one) would have been the blonde. I am sure that Archie's dreams will be crushed, and that Betty will be there to help him pick up the pieces, as she always is. -k

Married? Aren't they still in highschool? Stupid Archie... Betty's too good for him. -k

Because it's never as simple as that? I've never heard of circumstances where men with the same seniority are paid more than women in the same job. It's not a problem, and it's a non-issue. Advocates of this sort of thing usually use vague terms like "equal pay for work of equal value", and ask questions like "why should a construction worker earn more than a school teacher?" or "why should a manual laborer earn more than a retail store worker?" Well, retail store workers do practically nothing, that's why they're paid so modestly. Construction workers are frequently injured and even killed, do exhausting work in often unpleasant conditions, and are usually in short supply; school teachers work 10 months a year and are constantly in oversupply. If "traditional female" jobs don't pay as well as "traditional male" jobs, maybe the answer would be for women to make different career choices. -k

I think CTV did a service to Canadians by letting them see the real Stephane Dion. -k

Betsy raises the subject of materialism. Is materialism the reason why all these married women work? My parents bought their first house in the early 1980s, and even with just one income were able to pay off the mortgage within 10 years. Right now, a comparable house in any of Canada's major cities would probably cost more than most two-income families could pay off in 20 years. I'd be curious to see a comparison of income vs housing prices over the years; I bet that the average Canadian's income buys a lot less home than it used to. I think most Canadians probably grew up in homes that had a yard to play in and a bedroom for each child. I think this is an ideal that many young parents aspire to, and at present I think both parents working is the only way for most Canadian families to afford this (short of bumping off your parents and inheriting their home...) So, these are single-income families in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the country? I gather your advice for women seeking happiness is "marry a rich guy"? -k

Excellent post, Argus. You've taken this out of the realm of inane discussion of goofy generalizations ("feminists said this, and women did that, and now women feel like this...") and put it in the context of individuals making choices that fit their own circumstances and tastes, which is where it belongs. I bolded a couple of parts that I thought were particularly astute. -k

That's what it's like on Planet Oleg! -k {Oleg and Benny should get together and host a Crossfire-styled debate show called "WTF"}

One thing I've heard, and I believe it was based on a study although I can't find a cite, is that widowers are generally much less happy than their married counterparts, while widows are generally happier than their married counterparts. Based purely on my own observations of seniors I've known, I find that completely believable. The married women spend their days babysitting cantankerous old goats. The widows spend their days travelling, going to events, and other things that they never got to do while the cantankerous old goat was alive. -k