Topics

1

Life from a feminist view / are women really capable of holding political office?

« on: February 09, 2007, 12:30:41 PM »

I feel sometimes that I am ancient, much older than the 50 something years I have been around when I encounter the timelessness of male insecurities surrounding women.
TDH strategies (at PB blogs) has posted some thoughts on Dion's 33% target which intends to elect more women into government, the post is entitled "Women Only Nomination Meetings are Ridiculous". Despite the fact that women are 51% of the population and the target is only 33% this is a source of fear that inferior candidates will be put forward crowding out much better candidates just to meet a target. The assurances from Dion that he will indulge in very little interference when it comes to the nomination is only somewhat mollifying for this poster- what if he does interfere, will some man be hurt by this just because he is a man? Oh no!

The thing is, this poster has not even paused for a nanosecond to consider that women have been effectively shut out of politics for decades. In the political arena, the job market, leadership roles of the clergy, influential roles in media and the even the  non profit sector have seen an old boys network that is not as solid as it used to be but is still operating in many areas of modern life.

As women we have seen some political hacks with the brains of a one celled organism get plum positions and nominations simply because of their connections. How many women have been passed over that were dedicated hardworking and intelligent simply because they were women?

I don't think that forcing women into nominations where there simply are no women stepping forward in a riding, just to fill a quota is smart or even feasible, but is there any real danger of that happening? I mean really- does this guy honestly think that there are so few qualified women out there that a 33% target will force recruiters to scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of qualified women?

IMHO I believe that if Dion wanted to, he could run a 100% female slate of candidates from coast to coast and he wouldn't even have to break a sweat to find the candidates.

2

The Arts / I've Seen the Future and it ain't a Pretty Picture

« on: January 28, 2007, 07:52:22 PM »

It's Canada Council's 50th anniversary in 2007 and to celebrate they have challenged all Canadians to get more involved with the arts through various programmes and initiatives. Considering the Harper government's latest round of cuts they should have saved their challenges for the knuckledragging mouth breathing Reformatories in Ottawa.

I picked up my Globe this morning and read Margaret Atwoods article "And no flowers bloomed" (Saturday Globe and Mail, Jan 27,2007) to read with dismay that the Conservatives have axed ALL of the budget for the international promotion of Canadian art, all Canadian arts and culture- all monies allocated are gone. Margaret Atwood found out about this as she was attending a literary event at the American Embassy because the Canadian Embassy couldn't afford to host a reception.

Festival America:Litteratures et Cultures d'Amerique du Nord. It was Canada's year of Honour, so there were 26 Canadians, as opposed to two Cubans, four Mexicans, and 24 Americans. The festival was attended by 23,000 people over three days, and generated a million mentions of Canada in the French press.

Atwood goes on to say

The amounts of money rmoved were minute- a fraction of a fraction of a per cent of Canada's federal budget. And the Harper government had just posted a 13 billion dollar surplus. So why had they taken this bizarre step?

She speculates with wicked humour listing some of the reasons like number 4 on her list-

Frugality. There's lots of arts around. We can get them cheaper from across the border than it costs to make them here, and if you've seen one art, you've seen them all.

Atwood ends by speculating just what kind of society  the Conservatives want to build, and that is something I have wondered at myself. With so many seemingly weird cuts to areas that are important for Canada and Canada's image abroad. Cuts to Literacy, Education, Research, Space Exploration, Arts and Culture, Women's advocacy and the list goes on. I am afraid of the vision forming in the outer reaches of my imagination, I hope my imagination is just a little overactive. Harper is painting this picture with his actions and it isn't pretty- just grey, dull and oppressive.

Some facts for arts advocacy
- 40- to 75% of all labour for the arts sector is volunteer (read free!)
- over 1/2 a million people are actually employed in the arts
- GDP from cultural activities in Canada amounts to 39 BILLION (2002)
-more than 1/4 of cultural workers are self employed- more than any other sector of Canadian workers
-Cultural workers are less reliant on the public sector with only 5% being in the public sphere while all other Canadians are about 19%
-The labour contribution of volunteers amounts to 1.2 billion dollars - based on average hourly wage- 88 million hours= 46,000 full time jobs
-some organisations that fall under the cultural/arts pervue- zoos, museums, theatre and dance, aquariums, public galleries, painting and pottery studios, media and communications, and societies of all kinds from historical to language to pet lovers as well as many others.

Some links
http://culturescope.ca/ev_en.php?  statistics canada-author Vik Singh
Canada Council for the Arts