Melanie_

Is this a previously published article? You should cite the source if it is. If it isn't, and you wrote it just for us, you should know that Kenneth Thomson died in June of 2006. I'm not quibbling with the sentiments, just remember to acknowledge the writer and source.

Geoffrey - Certainly polygamy can result in more children than polyandry, but the practices seem to have evolved for different purposes. From the little bit of online research I've done, it seems like a system that's rare and getting rarer. I think I've brought in something completely different than what margrace's original question was asking for. Sorry for the thread drift! An Anthropology Website

Yep. Cuba, too, just where all of us 'Peggers wish we were every January.

But if you live in a society with a sparse population, where there are few women and men are away for substantial periods of time, having several husbands makes sense from a reproductive viewpoint. While one husband is away, another keeps the homefires burning, so to speak.

There seems to be an assumption that if a woman has more than one husband it would be by her choice. It may also be that, if there is a shortage of marriagable women, a group of men may "share" a wife. Put that way, it seems less empowering, doesn't it? There actually are several cultures that have practiced polyandry (as opposed to polygamy), including the Inuit in the Canadian North. The most commonly cited, though, are tribes in Tibet. This article doesn't talk about New Guinea, but I have a vague recollection of studying polyandrous societies in New Guinea for an Anthropology course in University. Wikipedia - Polyandry

Thanks, Guyser. That's generous based on what you know of me from a few posts, but I'll take it.

As a mother of 4, I understand the desperation of wanting your children to make good choices. But I have always believed I get the first 15 years to influence them, to teach them right from wrong, and to do my best to instill my values in them. After that, I have to trust that those lessons will guide them when I'm not around to do so. This girl can't be exonerated from responsibility - partially because of her choices, one man is dead and another will spend 10 years in jail. I say partially because they made choices too. Saying the dad is justified because he "snapped" is a truly scary statement. So is saying this was his only option. Arbitrarily killing someone can't be viewed as an option under any circumstances.

And yet, we protect the right of an adult to hit a child.

Crocus is an RRSP mutual fund set up to promote investment in Manitoba. Investments were mismanaged, scandal ensued, people lost lots of money, bitterness abounds, nothing is settled yet. I'm one of those trusting people who put money into it.

Compensation to be announced tomorrow. Personal compensation of $10 Million, plus legal costs, and formal apology. This is on the National right now.

And Melanie, you're missing the point. The Liberal scheme on paper would have created a "system" but in practice it would have been like the situation in Quebec: long waiting lists and patchwork care.If you haven't noticed, there has been a broad gulf between what politicians promised and what was delivered in fact. The $100 and the 1% GST cut are tangible. Quebec's situation resulted from trying to expand a system too quickly. The Liberal program wasn't perfect, and may have resulted in some of the same problems if provinces applied the Quebec formula without really giving it enough thought - too many places hold Quebec up as a model without recognizing the drawbacks they set up for themselves. Other systems can be put in place or expanded on with greater success. There absolutely has been a broad gulf between what politicians promised and what has been delivered. The Liberals should have acted earlier. The Conservatives should have put more thought into their plans. The current policy gives money to families that they lose through their taxes, unless they are in the top income bracket - they get to keep most of the money. There is no real plan for expanding spaces, other than some vague "we will figure it out sometime soon". In the meantime, families struggle looking for care that is something more than just custodial, and are condemned for doing so by the self-righteous "you've been given $100, so you should stay home with your kids" crowd.

Geoffrey, you're missing the point. No one expected the Liberals to cover the costs of child care; parents still were expected to pay for thier children's care. The plan was to set up a system that would benefit Canadian families. Giving them money to find whatever patchwork care they can scrape together doesn't benefit anyone but the nice lady down the street who sits 12 children in front of her TV all day.

This is an interesting perspective I wasn't aware of. How will a Canadian world view, superimposed on a Somalian world view, impact policy and governance models in this country? Mogadishu was in the papers again today with an airstrike and general chaos; they are a long way from peace. Also, will it be an asset or a liability to the new government to have such a strong Western influence? Another issue could be the dependence on the Western influenced politicians, and a marginalization of those who stayed.

It's MapleLeafWeb, Dancer! Of course he prefers coffee from a former Maple Leaf! Sheesh!

Absolutely true, Canuck. It took the Libs a long time - too long - to address the issue. But the Conservatives have taken a potentially good program and tossed it out, replacing it with something they themselves don't really understand. There is a big mess to clean up in Ottawa, so they could have just left this program alone and had one less mess to think about.

Alberta is recognized throughout Canada as having the least investment and commitment to a child care program. They spent a great deal of their share of the federal money on an accreditation program that encouraged centres and providers to meet basic standards that are far less than those regulated in other provinces. I wonder what the loss of those federal dollars in April of this year will mean to the standards that have just been met by those who chose the accreditation route. Maybe King Ralph's successor will have a different child care agenda - what do Albertans think?

Amen, Drea!

The problem is that the politicians here are stagnant. Doer hasn't done a stellar job, but there is no one really to challenge him. Hugh McFayden (Conservative leader) is my MLA, but he still seems like a non entity to me. I've lost money on Crocus, and I'm pi$$ed about that, but I just don't see a viable option in the Tories, and of course the provincial Liberals aren't even on the radar.

If we are concerned about institutionalized daycare, we should be working hard to stop the privatization of the industry. The largest daycare chain in the world, ABC Learning Centre, operates in Australia but has recently expanded to the US. The owner of the chain is a Canadian, who would love to start up some Walmart sized cookie cutter daycares back home. Institutionalized daycare would see curriculum set in Brisbane, and profits sent to Brisbane. We can also expect licensing regulations to be influence by large companies, rather than by what is in the best interests of the children. This is a huge industry, and once we open up the private sector fully, this is what we can expect. Wikipedia On the other hand, public, non profit centres are generally run by parent boards of directors, who have the mandate to hire or fire the director of the program, and who oversee policy and budget. Parents are the final authority in a non profit centre (at least this is the way the system is set up in Manitoba). As non profit corporations, all income is put back into the program and salaries, rather than going to the pocket of the owner (private model). Parent fees are lower because there isn't a drive for profits, and staff are better paid as well.

The Conservatives don't have a child care plan at all, they just reinstated the Family Allowance. They made a promise they have no idea how to deliver on when they talked about incentives for businesses to start up daycares - is every Canadian Tire in the country going to have its own little worksite child care centre, only for the use of its employees? Anyway, businesses aren't interested in taking up the offer. Build Child Care.ca The money the Liberals gave for child care will come to an end in April of 2007, and the Conservative plan of 125,000 new spaces is nowhere on the horizon. They are already 25,000 spaces behind on the promised timelines.

Name me a price and I will consider it. Make it enough and I will share her forever and ever. Husband or pimp?

"Give me the boy until he is 7, and I will show you the man." St. Francis of Assissi

I would say this is probably true. But, let's try this (and we have probably all been remiss at asking you this): as a feminist, what is it that you want? I'm not interested in quotas or artificial representation in a field. I want gender to become irrelevent in the workplace - that is, a person doing any job is a person, and their gender isn't a consideration. That extends not just to hiring practices, but also to day to day interactions with coworkers, customers/clients, supervisors, etc. Sexist comments like those mentioned earlier in the thread shouldn't be happening in either direction. Each occupation has its own forms of challenges and risks, and should be paid accordingly. Equal pay for equal work means that an unbiased assessment determines the level of responsibility, training, and specialization a job requires. Jobs can then be compared to other jobs that are equivelent on those terms, and paid accordingly.

That's not my position at all. I agree that some feminists are unfair, and that they use the irrational arguement that because women have been discriminated against in the past, it is okay to use reverse discrimination now. I reject that line of thought, but that doesn't mean I reject feminism. I don't think its an overstatement at all - it is really the crux of the matter, stripped away from all the baggage that has been attached to it over the years. As for sexist jokes, there's a time and a place for everything - supervisors making sexist comments should know better. An occasional sexist joke might be ignored; repeated sexist jokes might elicit a complaint; constant sexist jokes is harrassment and should result in legal action. She should know better, too. We can't have it both ways, and people like her undermine the struggles so many women have had to go through to achieve nonsexist workplaces.

I find this thread of particular interest now, as the Robert Pickton trial is set to open tomorrow in Vancouver. We are about to examine the murders of 25 women who made their living providing a service to men, but who are condemned for doing so. The men who used the services are annonymous and free of any public censure. The loss of these women's lives is somehow eclipsed by the fact that they were prostitutes, as if that fact counterbalances their hopes, dreams and struggles for a better life. This trial, and the media that surrounds it, will be a true indication of the extent of misogyny in Canada today.