Melanie_

Yes, it isn't universal yet, but this is a growing trend and at the provincial level there is political commitment to full day kindergarten.

I'm putting this in the Federal Politics section, because on-reserve education is a Federal responsibility. Ontario is extending full day kindergarten programs as part of the provincial education mandate, but children on reserves will not have access to full day programs, because the Federal government will not fund this. Are children who are already disadvantaged going to be starting even further behind, because of this? The Star From further in the article, regarding who should be paying for the new program, there is a discussion about Jordan's Principle, which says that children should have equal access to services, and the jurisdictional arguments can be settled afterwards. While this is relevent to Ontario for now, I can see that full day kindergarten is going to be spreading across the country. Does the federal government have a responsibility to match provincial education initiatives?

You're twisting what was said here. No one has defended murder, or said it should be condoned based on beliefs. The Charter protects people's rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion, or expression, but Bonam is advocating restricting immigration based on the likelihood of them having views that are contrary to Canadian laws or customs.

Right... divorce happens to good, honest men because women are vindictive, militant feminists. Sounds like you've got a bitter tale to tell.

This ties in to the thread on Patriarchy that we've been discussing today; the inequality of power in a relationship can lead the power partner to feel such control over the subordinate partner, that her life is literally held in his hands.

I agree, he isn't making a good argument for returning to a patriarchal system. My point, though, is that if you look at more recent research you would find different results. But regardless of what the actual findings are, it doesn't mean patriarchy will be the answer.

These quotes are all from the 80's. Have you looked at any more current research?

Demonstrably: in an obvious and provable manner; "his documentary sources are demonstrably wrong" incontrovertibly, provably There are certainly times when one partner is demonstrably wrong. In a marriage where partners are equal, they have an opportunity to be honest about their mistakes, apologize, and rectify them. In your vision of a patriarchal marriage, where one partner has to be infallible, there is never that opportunity to be human. When you state that one partner must have final arbiting and decision making power, I fundamentally disagree. One partner cannot have the final say on every facet of a marriage, based on his/her personal preferences and opinions. That nullifies the value of the other partner, and creates a relationship based on oppression. Then perhaps you should give it some more thought, and provide a more comprehensive definition of what you mean by head of household. This is a sidestep, rather than an answer to the question. It means the marriage is over.

Tim, you are avoiding my questions, or perhaps I haven't been clear. Let me try again. If the head of family (male or female) is demonstrably wrong,and the subordinate partner is demonstrably right, does that subordinate partner have a right to oppose the head of family, in a patriarchal system? Is the subordinate partner bound to follow along as the head of family makes decisions for him/her that he/she opposes? What is the extent of responsibility the head of family (male or female) has for his/her partner? You've earlier in the thread (post 18) stated that the head of family is responsible towards the courts for the behaviours of his/her family - to what extent, then, should he/she control those behaviours, and to what extent does his/her partner have personal freedom? Edited to add a question based on your last post... Is a family truly unified if one person makes all the decisions, and the others are compelled to go along with it?

And yet, by its very definition, patriarchy would grant head of family status to men; you've also opposed matriarchy in this thread, which implies to me that you also oppose head of family status for women. The next part of your post is mind boggling, if I'm reading it correctly. You are saying that, in fact, a woman might be correct in her view, but that doesn't mean she has the right to oppose her husband. You are endorsing complete authority of the husband as head of family, even when he is wrong, because he is the one with the decision making power. You deny her the right to rebel and establish a family that does not include him (via divorce), because disobedience towards the head of family is not warranted. Please tell me I have misread your views here.

I still am unconvinced that the patriarchal marriage, as you've described it, is a better model than one of equal power sharing. Can there truly be unity and solidarity of a household if one partner's views are not equally valued? It seems to me that there might be surface unity, but this would be a facade. Also, if one partner is in charge of ensuring that the family doesn't break up, or sees themselves responsible for the actions of the other, does the other partner truly have personal freedom? This promotes a dependant relationship, and puts the wife on the same footing as her children, which undermines her authority (despite your assertion that both parents have the right to be obeyed and respected by their children). It also makes me wonder, how will the partner in charge monitor the partner they are responsible for? What is the limit of the authority granted to the power partner in a patriarchal marriage?

Ok, lets leave divorce aside for now. It does have a place in this discussion, but not just yet. As bloodyminded said, this patriarchical ideal seems to hinge on male power in a relationship; your interpretation of how that can be enacted is very rarely the norm. You've talked about the counterbalance of power, because women have the certain knowledge of the source of their children, but counterbalance implies equal power, rather than the male being the head of the household. What is the benefit of the patriarchal system, as opposed to a full and equal partnership within a marriage?

I don't think you're going to get an argument over this. Anyone coming into a country needs to abide by the laws of that country. I don't think the Italian justice system is going to excuse this murder because of whatever rationalization the murderer puts forward. What you really want is an argument over the ideology of fundamentalist Islam - no one bit the first time, so you are fanning the flames by using words like "rival" and "hate". This tragedy is an example of how there is a clash of culture and values when immigrants enter a new society - what is your solution to this problem?

Interesting topic, Tim, and one that I'm sure will generate a lot of really good discussion. My initial response to your post, though, is to ask why patriarchy should be given these extra supports? You've explained how men have a precarious position in the family, but have also stated that they should be seen as head of the family. These seem like contradictory ideas - how do you reconcile them?

I hope the Italian justice system prosecutes these men to the full extent of the law. Is there anything else really to say about this case?

Mark Twain

From a quick look at Wikipedia, it sounds like there is a seperate school board because of minority religion rights, but these rights only seem to apply to Christian religions - Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc are not eligible for these rights. This in itself seems unconstitutional to me. The UN seems to agree: On a side note, I found it interesting that a there was a "national crisis" when Manitoba decided not to have a seperate school system, and that a pope tried to influence this decision. Canadian Seperate Schools

There are only 2 official languages in Canada, and the government offers services in both. But there is no official religion, so no one religion should be given preferential treatment. We should either fund all religious schools equally, or not fund any religious schools, which would certainly be my preference.

Awwww... the embedding was disabled.

I think atheists can be married to people who follow a religion, as long as everyone is willing to respect each others' views. I was an atheist when I got married, but I told my Catholic husband he was welcome to dress the kids up and take them off to Mass every Sunday morning. He never did ( :angry: ), and over the years he's pretty much adopted an atheist perspective himself, but I don't think we ever really had an issue with respecting each others' beliefs.

This is too funny!

JPII was Pope for over 20 years. Plenty of evil happened on his watch. Don't try to deify him - he was no better than Benny, or any other Pope. They've all let their values slide, when it came to protecting their own.

Thanks for the link, Dancer. I got 100%, 15/15 (but I must confess there were some lucky guesses in there). But I put Moses, and got it right.... Edited to add: atheist now, but was a committed Seventh Day Adventist at one time.

I don't believe for a minute that the producers of Sesame Street didn't notice the clothes she was wearing. They script everything to a T, so the outfit was deliberately chosen. I understand the argument that children are exposed to cleavage everywhere they go, but these are generally environments designed for adults. Sesame Street is designed for the preschool child, and this segment was meant to show Elmo playing with a friend. Why not dress her in clothes appropriate for the scene? My argument isn't so much that cleavage is a bad thing, I just don't see the reason for including it so prominantly in a video for children. Edited for spelling.

Bubber, I think the point is that it does go over little kids heads, at least on a conscious level. They are not sophisticated enough to be able to judge whether it is appropriate or not... they just take in what they see, and start building their understanding of the world around that. I'm just curious about who Sesame Street really wanted to pull in with this video - is it the average three year old, or the dad who just might be watching as well? Because if the video was aimed at three year olds, it could have been done with more appropriate clothes.