I know what you meant. When you said "We're all Africans" you were actually saying "If I prick her does she not bleed?" But making an argument in favour of recognizing the common humanity in us all is apparently a bad thing. When my Grandpa used to say things like "The world is going to hell in a handbasket," I would just roll my eyes. Well... I'm not rolling my eyes so much anymore. Hang in there, sister.
Sincerely,
PC
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Dear Everyone Contemplating Whether it's Time for a Female President,
In 2008, during the US Democratic leadership race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I heard something I’ve never forgotten. A few male colleagues were in the office kitchen discussing the matter. As I approached the door, I heard one of them say “Black man before a woman.” I stopped in my tracks. I had caught members of the male species in an unguarded moment! Free from the presence of females or human resources representatives, these men were able to freely say what was on their minds. And they were thinking that a penis, even a black one, trumps a womb.
Did the term sexist pigs flash through my mind? No. Well, I mean, yes. But that had more to do with a Christmas party incident than any speculation about international politics. Besides, I basically agreed with them. At the very heart of it, Obama vs Clinton was about addressing injustices. It was about healing wounds. And if racial ones needed to be dealt with before gender ones, then I could accept that. Historically, in the United States, this has been the natural progression. African American men had the vote before women — often not in practice, of course, but constitutionally. And the civil rights movement occurred before the women’s liberation movement. So, a black President before a female one? Fine with me.
African American children needed their role model. They needed proof that they could soar as high as they wanted. And they got it. Or, at least, male black children got it. Now little girls need theirs. Other countries have had female leaders. Curiously, some of the nations with the worst human rights records have had women in the top role, including India and Pakistan. Here in Canada we had a female Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, although she essentially inherited the job and then, in the next general election, was soundly defeated. But still, Canada has the check mark. The United States doesn’t. And that matters. It’s still considered the most powerful nation on earth. Putting a female in the White House is necessary. Old scars demand their balm.
Let me qualify that. Putting the RIGHT female in the White House is necessary. The very notion that Sarah Palin could have been a heart attack away from the Oval Office still makes me want to come out of my skin. The lady who does earn the page in the history books must be capable of reasoned debate and rational thought. And I believe Hillary Clinton has earned that honor. She’s been vilified, condemned, scoffed, mocked, dismissed, pilloried, and scorned. She’s weathered tsunami after tsunami. And she’s still standing. Hillary has proven herself. She is capable and qualified. She has intimate knowledge of the White House. She was a damn fine Secretary of State. And she remains cool under pressure. Except during Benghazi trials. That’s when she indulges in a little fist-pounding schooling. She is a warrior.
Truth be told though, my first choice would have been Elizabeth Warren. In my mind, she’s the Messiah. Her cause is the middle class and she has waged holy war on the banking industry. Her tongue is like a whip, and her lashings of Wall Street bastards give me reason to live. Would I have relished the thought of all those retirement-savings plunderers squirming in their Lamborghinis if she was elected to the highest office in the land? You bet your ass. But it’s not meant to be. Not this round anyway.
As Bill O’Reilly and others have sagely surmised, there will undoubtedly be a downside to having a lady president. It’s very likely that in the immediate aftermath of Hillary’s election all hell will break loose. Arab leaders and Rush Limbaugh will refuse to recognize her authority. China will flex its might and Putin will flex his shirtless muscles. All to test the little female and see how she handles herself. It will be a trying time as everyone adjusts to the strange new world of having a woman in charge. But there’s some good news. Hillary is of an age where she’s likely stopped menstruating. So there won’t be any PMS or mood swings. And she won’t be attracting any bears onto the White House lawn. Which is great.
I’m not going to sugar coat it. Hillary comes with baggage. She’s too cozy with Wall Street. Her husband ushered in a period of financial deregulation greater than Ronald Reagan’s. Which is why I so dearly love Elizabeth Warren. But realistically, what would happen to Warren’s ideals if she did run and was elected? It’s no secret that big business pulls some, if not most, of the strings in Washington. Could Elizabeth really maintain her crusade against the financial industry from inside the White House when all the Remy Dantons and Raymond Tusks begin spreading their tentacles and doing their worst? Yes I’m referencing House of Cards. You don’t think there’s some truth steeped in that fiction? Please.
Speaking of the darkness that beats in the hearts of humans, let’s not forget that true equality requires the recognition that a woman can be every bit as disappointing as a man. Even, as it turns out, a black man. Obama promised hope and change. Instead Americans got an administration full of Wall Street cronies, a war on whistleblowers, heightened surveillance of ordinary citizens, and controversial drone strikes. Make no mistake. Hillary Clinton (and even Elizabeth Warren) would be just as capable of disillusioning her supporters. But she’d be letting everyone down from inside the Oval Office. And that’s all that matters.
So get ready everyone. The gentlemen said it themselves. Black man before a woman. It’s time.
Sincerely,
PC
Did the term sexist pigs flash through my mind? No. Well, I mean, yes. But that had more to do with a Christmas party incident than any speculation about international politics. Besides, I basically agreed with them. At the very heart of it, Obama vs Clinton was about addressing injustices. It was about healing wounds. And if racial ones needed to be dealt with before gender ones, then I could accept that. Historically, in the United States, this has been the natural progression. African American men had the vote before women — often not in practice, of course, but constitutionally. And the civil rights movement occurred before the women’s liberation movement. So, a black President before a female one? Fine with me.
African American children needed their role model. They needed proof that they could soar as high as they wanted. And they got it. Or, at least, male black children got it. Now little girls need theirs. Other countries have had female leaders. Curiously, some of the nations with the worst human rights records have had women in the top role, including India and Pakistan. Here in Canada we had a female Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, although she essentially inherited the job and then, in the next general election, was soundly defeated. But still, Canada has the check mark. The United States doesn’t. And that matters. It’s still considered the most powerful nation on earth. Putting a female in the White House is necessary. Old scars demand their balm.
Let me qualify that. Putting the RIGHT female in the White House is necessary. The very notion that Sarah Palin could have been a heart attack away from the Oval Office still makes me want to come out of my skin. The lady who does earn the page in the history books must be capable of reasoned debate and rational thought. And I believe Hillary Clinton has earned that honor. She’s been vilified, condemned, scoffed, mocked, dismissed, pilloried, and scorned. She’s weathered tsunami after tsunami. And she’s still standing. Hillary has proven herself. She is capable and qualified. She has intimate knowledge of the White House. She was a damn fine Secretary of State. And she remains cool under pressure. Except during Benghazi trials. That’s when she indulges in a little fist-pounding schooling. She is a warrior.
Truth be told though, my first choice would have been Elizabeth Warren. In my mind, she’s the Messiah. Her cause is the middle class and she has waged holy war on the banking industry. Her tongue is like a whip, and her lashings of Wall Street bastards give me reason to live. Would I have relished the thought of all those retirement-savings plunderers squirming in their Lamborghinis if she was elected to the highest office in the land? You bet your ass. But it’s not meant to be. Not this round anyway.
As Bill O’Reilly and others have sagely surmised, there will undoubtedly be a downside to having a lady president. It’s very likely that in the immediate aftermath of Hillary’s election all hell will break loose. Arab leaders and Rush Limbaugh will refuse to recognize her authority. China will flex its might and Putin will flex his shirtless muscles. All to test the little female and see how she handles herself. It will be a trying time as everyone adjusts to the strange new world of having a woman in charge. But there’s some good news. Hillary is of an age where she’s likely stopped menstruating. So there won’t be any PMS or mood swings. And she won’t be attracting any bears onto the White House lawn. Which is great.
I’m not going to sugar coat it. Hillary comes with baggage. She’s too cozy with Wall Street. Her husband ushered in a period of financial deregulation greater than Ronald Reagan’s. Which is why I so dearly love Elizabeth Warren. But realistically, what would happen to Warren’s ideals if she did run and was elected? It’s no secret that big business pulls some, if not most, of the strings in Washington. Could Elizabeth really maintain her crusade against the financial industry from inside the White House when all the Remy Dantons and Raymond Tusks begin spreading their tentacles and doing their worst? Yes I’m referencing House of Cards. You don’t think there’s some truth steeped in that fiction? Please.
Speaking of the darkness that beats in the hearts of humans, let’s not forget that true equality requires the recognition that a woman can be every bit as disappointing as a man. Even, as it turns out, a black man. Obama promised hope and change. Instead Americans got an administration full of Wall Street cronies, a war on whistleblowers, heightened surveillance of ordinary citizens, and controversial drone strikes. Make no mistake. Hillary Clinton (and even Elizabeth Warren) would be just as capable of disillusioning her supporters. But she’d be letting everyone down from inside the Oval Office. And that’s all that matters.
So get ready everyone. The gentlemen said it themselves. Black man before a woman. It’s time.
Sincerely,
PC
Friday, January 9, 2015
Dear Religious Extremists,
This is not just for the men who, at this very moment, are terrorizing Paris. This is also for the Christians who insist the world is only 6,000 years old. You're not noble or courageous. You think you have great strength of will, holding on so fervently to your beliefs in a world bent on destroying them. You're wrong. You are cowards. Lazy cowards. It's much easier to put on blinders. It's much easier to say I'm right and everyone else is wrong. It takes work to entertain an opposing notion. It taxes the brain to mull over a different train of thought. It takes courage to concede that what you were spoon-fed from the cradle may not be the one and only way. You are lazy sheep, blindly following because it's easier to stay with the pack. You are cowards. And you are the most dangerous people the world has ever seen.
Sincerely,
PC
Sincerely,
PC
Friday, November 7, 2014
Dear Greatest Day of My Life,
I think of you often. You were cold. Blistering winds. Grey skies. Waves crashing against rocks. I was 27. Standing on the tip of Prince Edward Island. Not a soul anywhere. Wind and spray stinging my cheeks. Giant windmills towering above. Science and steel. Harnessing what can't be harnessed. Threatening to hurl me into the ocean. I felt my place. The place of any human being. Small and insignificant. Wrapped up in the arms of an unconquerable power. Raw. True. Harsh. Exquisite. You were the greatest day of my life.
Sincerely,
PC
Sincerely,
PC
Friday, October 31, 2014
Dear Jian Ghomeshi,
You are the latest man to disappoint. The latest man whose intellect, politics and ideology I’ve long respected and admired but who turns out, inconceivably, shockingly, to have troubling attitudes towards women. You’ve joined a very distinguished list, Jian.
Christopher Hitchens was the first to break my heart. His mastery of the English language made me swoon. I didn’t necessarily agree with everything he wrote, but I could never deny the eloquence and voracious intellect behind each of his opinions. I had him on a pedestal. So imagine my dismay when, in the days after his passing, while reading all the articles about him, I discovered a discourse relating to his apparent misogynistic and anti-feminist tendencies. I began to understand that arguing against women wearing a burqa or in favour of them being allowed to drive a car in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily the same thing as viewing all females as equal and worthy of respect.
Bill Maher also makes the list. For years I have loved his show and his anti-Republican rants. He too says so many of the right things. So many liberal and progressive views. And he has so many women on his show! For so long I wouldn’t allow myself to believe anything else. He is a champion of so many of my ideals, how could he possibly be so disappointing on this particular issue? But over the years it’s become impossible to ignore that so many of his jokes are intended for men – and so many of his punchlines are demeaning to women. I imagine this is how the women involved in the civil rights movement in the 60s must have felt when it became clear that their male counterparts, supposedly liberal and enlightened men, intended to do all the important work while the little ladies fetched them coffee.
And now we arrive at the next disappointment. And it’s a big one. It’s a man whom I still can’t quite believe I am adding to this list. A man who more than just says the right things. He’s a man who gets involved. He fights for the right causes. He speaks up. He shines a light. He is George Clooney. “But,” you may sputter, “He just married an internationally-respected human rights lawyer! His days of dating women whose sole role was to look good on his arm are over!” Are they? Yes, Amal Alamuddin, now Amal Clooney, is a highly respected lawyer who has represented Julian Assange and Yulia Tymoshenko. Her profile page on the Doughty Street Chambers website is spectacularly impressive. She is, as many have said, George Clooney’s intellectual equal. His intellectual superior, others have said. So what’s my problem? After the honeymoon, what was her very first case, widely reported on by the media? An international human rights issue, as she’s worked on in the past? No. In fact, not long ago, Mrs Clooney pulled out of an appointment with the UN Human Rights Council to investigate possible violations of the rules of war by the Israeli regime in Gaza. I wonder why. But back to her first case as a married woman. It’s the Greek Government’s attempt to have the Elgin Marbles returned by Britain. That’s right. She passed on dealing with the horrors of war in order to deal with pretty statues. Why do I have the sinking feeling that this admirable and accomplished woman is being encouraged to dumb herself down, to put it crudely, in order to make herself seem more “relatable” or “feminine” or “palatable” to Americans, just in case her husband decides to enter the political arena? Someone, please, prove me wrong on this.
There’s another name that may or may not belong on this list, but I can’t bring myself to discuss Bill Cosby. It’s like learning all over again that Santa isn’t real.
I don’t want to be right. I don’t want to believe that the men I have looked up to for so long ultimately think so little of my sex. I’d like nothing more than to be proven wrong. I’m sure you wouldn’t mind knocking some sense into me, right Jian? At least the first three men on the list have only been disappointing verbally or ideologically, never physically. But not you, Jian. I loved your show for so long. Your thoughtful, warm and intelligent interviews and commentary. Your talk with Mandy Patinkin has long been my go-to inspirational boost. But no longer. It’s all tainted. It’s clear now that demeaning and harming women gives you great pleasure. You’re the biggest disappointment on this ever growing list. Thank you for nothing.
Sincerely,
PC
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Dear Margaret Wente,
So I woke up the other day ready for a leisurely morning with my coffee and The Globe and Mail. And then I reached your interview with Tom Flanagan and my peaceful morning was ruined. As I read your words, my anger mounted. After just a few paragraphs I knew exactly where you were heading. I've been reading you for years, Margaret Wente. Quite often, you make me shake my head in disbelief, like when you say worries about rape on college campuses are overblown. But, as Bill Maher is fond of saying, I try not to live in a bubble. I'm a Lefty, yes, but I try to see the merits in both sides of an argument. So I'll admit you're an intelligent woman and that once in a while you make a good point. But not this time. This time you went too far.
In discussing what Tom Flanagan calls The Incident, his lecture at The University of Lethbridge last year which proved to be career ending due to his comments about child pornography, you refer to the native activists who recorded his statements as "unusually hostile" and "out to get him". Not once do you suggest they might have legitimate reasons to be angry with the man who opposes the rights of First Nations, who recommends taking tribal lands out from under the protection of treaties, and who referred to the residential school system as "visionary". You know, those residential schools with their policies of forced assimilation and attempts to, as Stephen Harper himself put it, "kill the Indian in the child"? There's a documentary called We Were Children which depicts just how visionary those schools were. But no, any anger or hostility Native Canadians feel for this man must be irrational and unwarranted. And how very hostile and underhanded indeed to ask the man a question based on his own prior statements and then to video his response. Boy, they sure tricked him!
The controversial statement Tom Flanagan made was that he disagrees with mandatory jail time for someone who has a particular taste in pictures. You say that you think he has a point, and how silly it is to incarcerate someone for carrying "an obscene Japanese comic book". Anyone who disagrees is dismissed with "But most people aren't interested in the fine points". But it seems to me that it's you, Margaret Wente, who isn't interested in the fine points. And the fine points are: to have a "taste in pictures" means you are interested in those pictures, which means you are an audience for those pictures, which means you contribute to the demand for those pictures, which means you help provide the financial incentive for someone to supply those pictures, which means you're complicit in the production of those pictures. Which means you're complicit in the harming of a child. Get it? Make no mistake, that IS the point. Those three words that Tom Flanagan uttered, "taste in pictures", which you so conveniently left out of your article, are what is so troubling and problematic and deplorable. I know what you're going to say, Margaret Wente. You're going to argue semantics. The headline of the video was "Tom Flanagan okay with child pornography". You say, "He said no such thing". He didn't? Tom Flanagan said he's not okay with the act of creating the pornography but he's okay with admiring the results. They're "just pictures". Yep. Semantics.
Does he have a right to say it? Yes. Do I defend his right to say it? Yes. He also has the right to face the consequences for saying it. Free speech means not facing jail or a firing squad, but it doesn't mean free of consequences. Never has and never will. Tom Flanagan is now peddling a book and lamenting the loss of free speech in the internet age. Don't you find it funny that this is coming from the man who once called for the assassination of Julian Assange? Tom Flanagan deserved the firestorm. The ideology behind his comments is harmful and potentially dangerous. We're not talking about some politically incorrect uncle making everyone roll their eyes at Thanksgiving dinner. We're talking about an influential man, a professor, a man who had a role in shaping national policy. Do I relish the fact that this has happened to Tom Flanagan, evil Conservative puppet master? You bet. Am I surprised it happened? No. Look at his brothers in the US Republican Party. Their continual foot-in-mouth comments about rape prove that these older Conservative males have a staggering lack of sensitivity and common sense. They are also proving that they are deeply out of touch with the times.
Ah, the times. Gone are the good old days, eh Margaret? As you say, "Twenty years ago, there would have been no story, no incident. There were no cellphones to capture casual remarks, no YouTube to post them on". Yes, wasn't life better when it was easier for someone to say and do harmful things and the average citizen had no way of capturing the incident digitally and sharing it? I know Tom Flanagan thinks so. Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy, too. And I guess you as well, Margaret Wente. I'm shaking my head. Yet again.
Sincerely,
PC
In discussing what Tom Flanagan calls The Incident, his lecture at The University of Lethbridge last year which proved to be career ending due to his comments about child pornography, you refer to the native activists who recorded his statements as "unusually hostile" and "out to get him". Not once do you suggest they might have legitimate reasons to be angry with the man who opposes the rights of First Nations, who recommends taking tribal lands out from under the protection of treaties, and who referred to the residential school system as "visionary". You know, those residential schools with their policies of forced assimilation and attempts to, as Stephen Harper himself put it, "kill the Indian in the child"? There's a documentary called We Were Children which depicts just how visionary those schools were. But no, any anger or hostility Native Canadians feel for this man must be irrational and unwarranted. And how very hostile and underhanded indeed to ask the man a question based on his own prior statements and then to video his response. Boy, they sure tricked him!
The controversial statement Tom Flanagan made was that he disagrees with mandatory jail time for someone who has a particular taste in pictures. You say that you think he has a point, and how silly it is to incarcerate someone for carrying "an obscene Japanese comic book". Anyone who disagrees is dismissed with "But most people aren't interested in the fine points". But it seems to me that it's you, Margaret Wente, who isn't interested in the fine points. And the fine points are: to have a "taste in pictures" means you are interested in those pictures, which means you are an audience for those pictures, which means you contribute to the demand for those pictures, which means you help provide the financial incentive for someone to supply those pictures, which means you're complicit in the production of those pictures. Which means you're complicit in the harming of a child. Get it? Make no mistake, that IS the point. Those three words that Tom Flanagan uttered, "taste in pictures", which you so conveniently left out of your article, are what is so troubling and problematic and deplorable. I know what you're going to say, Margaret Wente. You're going to argue semantics. The headline of the video was "Tom Flanagan okay with child pornography". You say, "He said no such thing". He didn't? Tom Flanagan said he's not okay with the act of creating the pornography but he's okay with admiring the results. They're "just pictures". Yep. Semantics.
Does he have a right to say it? Yes. Do I defend his right to say it? Yes. He also has the right to face the consequences for saying it. Free speech means not facing jail or a firing squad, but it doesn't mean free of consequences. Never has and never will. Tom Flanagan is now peddling a book and lamenting the loss of free speech in the internet age. Don't you find it funny that this is coming from the man who once called for the assassination of Julian Assange? Tom Flanagan deserved the firestorm. The ideology behind his comments is harmful and potentially dangerous. We're not talking about some politically incorrect uncle making everyone roll their eyes at Thanksgiving dinner. We're talking about an influential man, a professor, a man who had a role in shaping national policy. Do I relish the fact that this has happened to Tom Flanagan, evil Conservative puppet master? You bet. Am I surprised it happened? No. Look at his brothers in the US Republican Party. Their continual foot-in-mouth comments about rape prove that these older Conservative males have a staggering lack of sensitivity and common sense. They are also proving that they are deeply out of touch with the times.
Ah, the times. Gone are the good old days, eh Margaret? As you say, "Twenty years ago, there would have been no story, no incident. There were no cellphones to capture casual remarks, no YouTube to post them on". Yes, wasn't life better when it was easier for someone to say and do harmful things and the average citizen had no way of capturing the incident digitally and sharing it? I know Tom Flanagan thinks so. Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy, too. And I guess you as well, Margaret Wente. I'm shaking my head. Yet again.
Sincerely,
PC
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Dear So What Have You Been Doing All These Years,
What a rude little fucking question you are. Wrapped up in sincerity, I know your true meaning. How dare I not have a husband, child, or mortgage when I have blown out more than 40 candles on my cake. I see it in your eyes. I know what you really mean. And so I'll tell you, So What Have You Been Doing All These Years. I've been learning. I've been wondering. I've been searching. I've been having my heart smashed to smithereens. I've been bewildered and crushed and confused and clueless. I've been stupid. I've been impulsive. I've been brave. I've walked away.
I've been trying. I've been grasping. I've been disappointing. I've been failing. I have failed so many times I've lost count. I've crawled under rocks and hidden myself away. I've put myself out there and paid dearly for it. I've been lied to and lied about. I've been betrayed and rejected and misunderstood and thrown under the bus. I've been self-absorbed and self-conscious, hurtful and selfish. I've been the worst human being in the world. And I've been one of the kindest. I've been yearning, pleading, searching, begging. I've been grasping and holding on for dear life. I have hoped. I have despaired. I have whimpered and rocked myself to sleep. I have roared and I have bitten. I've been weak. I've run away.
I have misunderstood. I have gotten it spectacularly wrong. I've been a human being, in all its splendour and all its misery. I've written a few pathetic lines. I've written a few wonderful lines. I've prayed to God. I've stopped believing in fairy tales. I've wanted to end it all. I've been an optimist. I've been angry. I have blamed. I've forgiven. I've been chastened. I've been growing and becoming and getting back up. I've been finding myself. I've been finding my voice.
Does that answer suffice?
Sincerely,
PC
I've been trying. I've been grasping. I've been disappointing. I've been failing. I have failed so many times I've lost count. I've crawled under rocks and hidden myself away. I've put myself out there and paid dearly for it. I've been lied to and lied about. I've been betrayed and rejected and misunderstood and thrown under the bus. I've been self-absorbed and self-conscious, hurtful and selfish. I've been the worst human being in the world. And I've been one of the kindest. I've been yearning, pleading, searching, begging. I've been grasping and holding on for dear life. I have hoped. I have despaired. I have whimpered and rocked myself to sleep. I have roared and I have bitten. I've been weak. I've run away.
I have misunderstood. I have gotten it spectacularly wrong. I've been a human being, in all its splendour and all its misery. I've written a few pathetic lines. I've written a few wonderful lines. I've prayed to God. I've stopped believing in fairy tales. I've wanted to end it all. I've been an optimist. I've been angry. I have blamed. I've forgiven. I've been chastened. I've been growing and becoming and getting back up. I've been finding myself. I've been finding my voice.
Does that answer suffice?
Sincerely,
PC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)