Without Apology

May 13 2013

Toronto

When Was The Last Time You Visited Brantford?

The photo of Brantford literally being used right now to advertise for economic investment in the city. How touristy…

Brantford is a city near and dear to my heart. I grew up there in the ’90s and my mother still works there. I took swimming lessons at the Wayne Gretzsky Centre, summer days were spent biking the paths by the Grand, and I’m still trying to find a pizzaria place that makes a panzerotti the way Gigi’s Pizza does on Colborne. If there was someone who had a reason to visit Brantford, it would be me.

I don’t.

Unfortunately, despite the revitalization of the downtown core. There is really no reason to go… except maybe the panzerotti, although I certainly haven’t trekked out there just for that.

Brantford is not a tourist destination. It wasn’t before the casino and it wasn’t after. People don’t travel for gambling, that’s one myth we really have to put to bed. Although places like Las Vegas may be know for gambling, the truth is they have a lot more going for them as tourist destinations. First and foremost great weather that us Northern types like to escape to in cold winter months but it is literally bursting at the seems with shows, attractions, top rated restaurants, an extensive nightclub scene and not to mention a reputation for an easy location to get hitched (or divorced.) Brantford is no Vegas.

And Toronto isn’t either. No one is going to travel to Toronto because they now have casino in addition to the Skydome. It won’t happen. Best case scenario is that we’ll poach Casino Rama or Niagara region day trippers. Not to mention poor Woodbine Racetrack. Casinos are not new, or novel, or exciting. In today’s landscape, they just are.

Not surprisingly other benefits are over-hyped as well. Ford has been stumping on jobs since the beginning, but his numbers of 10,000 permanent jobs are inflated to say the least. For comparison there are only 33,000 people employed by the casino industry in Atlantic city, when there are 12 casinos. That’s under 3,000 per casino for those doing the math.

Of course, it speaks to the sadness of this economy when we are chasing jobs in bartending and housekeeping services. These jobs also don’t necessarily offset the severe damage we’re doing to the horse racing industry. Several raceways have already had to close. Woodbine has already made cutbacks to staff. A few thousand jobs here for how many lost on the track? Veterinarians losing business? Horse breeders losing their livelihoods? This isn’t a job gain, it’s a job shift, at best.

Lastly we have revenue. Which again, have been hyped to the max. Up to 148 million dollars… annually. Apparently a reporter in Niagara Falls had quite the head shake on that one… considering with two casinos operational, that city brings in 3 million a year. Not a typo there by the way, not thirty million, certainly not three hundred, just simply three million dollars.

Now I certainly wouldn’t sniff if someone wanted to dump that in my bank account every year, but I’m also not a metropolitan area of over 2 million people.

Toronto maybe able to ask for a premium over Niagara Falls for hosting a casino but the numbers being presented to the public are sheer fantasy.

If you want a casino, lobby for a casino; but don’t try to sell tax payers on obvious falsehoods.

Apr 24 2013

Leave a comment

Gender & Sexuality, Toronto

Ford Screws Up Even Good Intentions

Only Mayor Rob Ford could possible screw up a statement that started off with encouraging people to get involved in politics.

“I’ve had a lot of people who’ve been calling me — I don’t know what it is — the last couple weeks, about wanting to get involved in politics, or you want to run. I encourage people, I encourage people, I’ve always encouraged people — especially females. We need more females in politics. And it seems everyone says, ‘Oh, it’s male-dominated.’ Well, call me. Call me at home — 233-6934, 416-233-6934 — and [I’ll or we’ll] go for a coffee, and explain how politics works. You have to be over the age of 18, a Canadian citizen, and live in Toronto. And the rest is up to you, how hard you want to work.”

Oy. Where to start.

Well, I would like to mention that when you are discussing getting women involved in politics, please refrain from describing the as “females.” First of all, it’s dehumanizing. The use of female (or male) as a noun is generally reserved for biological applications. At best, it’s awkward and it’s usually used to denote contempt.

Then, although I’m not sure Ford cares too much on this point, not all women are females and not all females are women. Female denotes a sex, women denotes a gender. But again, given Ford’s treatment of the gay community, I’m doubting he’s too concerned about being inclusive of the transgendered community.

There’s a lot of chatter about whether Ford’s comments were intended to be condescending or not. The fact of the matter however, is that is WAS condescending. To suggest that women are not in politics, or are not successful in politics, because they simply don’t know politics is pretty ludicrous. There is not some magical difference between the genders about that makes politics easy for one and difficult for the other.

Women are not stymied by a lack of knowledge, they are stymied by old attitudes and a lack of productive connections. They are often seen as less electable due to stereotypes on beauty, family roles, and leadership qualities. What will actually help women are opportunities, networking and financing, not Poli Sci 101 pep talks.

Mar 02 2013

Leave a comment

Gender & Sexuality

Blaming The Victim On A Whole New Level

It’s not a surprise when a woman is blamed for the violence perpetrated against her.

It’s not a surprise when a woman is blamed for that violence, even when it ends in her death.

But I will say that this is the first time I have seen a woman blamed for her own murder in two completely conflicting ways on such a high profile case.

Oscar Pistorius, was known previously as a feel-good story of the 2012 Summer games. A double amputee, he competed for South Africa’s regular Olympic team and in fact carried the flag during the opening ceremonies.

Now he’s known for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Whether it was an intentional murder remains to be decided but there is no doubt that Pistorius shot through a bathroom door, hitting Steenkamp several times. Pistorius claims that he thought he heard an intruder and was attempting to defend himself, never seeing the individual in the bathroom.

So you would think that those supporting Pistorius wouldn’t try to add any gasoline to the fire.

Instead we have a scathing attack on Steenkamp from a Nigerian former Cabinet Minister Femi Fani-Kayode.

“I have little doubt that Pistorius, who was a great achiever, a living icon, the greatest and best known African sportsman in world history and an absolute gentleman, was provoked into a murderous rage by his pretty little lover and that she played on his insecurities and inadequacies. These are the classic traits of the biblical “strange woman”- the destroyer of men’s dreams and destinies.

Only God knows who sent this creature from the sea into this great man’s life just to destroy it. For Pistorius it is all over. In one moment of blind rage he has lost everything and he has brought shame, disgrace, sorrow and infamy upon his name and that of his family. The blood he has shed will speak against him and his lineage forever. And all because of a sexy and pretty little model who the devil sent his way.

May the Lord deliver us all from the daughters of Jezebel, Delilah, Athalia and Yemoja”

Those words are terrifying. Does he not realize that the little scenario he concocted in his mind is outright homicide? But I suppose that doesn’t matter because she ‘provoked’ him?

There is no other way to describe these words besides outright misogyny. So desperate to blame the woman for her death he throws Pistorius and the defense underneath the bus. It doesn’t matter who gets hurt, so long as we remember that SHE deserved it.

Feb 09 2013

Leave a comment

Government & Society

America, Home of The Scared.

One of the sentiments that is frequently bandied about in the American 2nd Amendment debate about gun control is this idea that there is a “gun culture.” Which is probably quite accurate. No one has a hold on their guns quite like Americans.

The real question is why the culture so inextricably links American identity with firearms.

One of the first proposals is always entertainment. Shoot ‘em up style action thrillers and violent video games. You’ll hear this one especially if the perpetrator of violence is a young or teenage male. Young men enjoying movies or video games isn’t solely an American phenomena however.

In fact most reasons put forth for a distinctly American problem are pretty global. Or, at least they occur in a few more places than just the United States of America. Poverty, racial tensions, drugs, gangs, a lack of Jesus, the 24 hour news cycle…

So what is quintessentially American about this American problem with guns? Well the first issue is there are a lot of them. There are nearly as many guns in America as there are people. Americans are packing a substantial amount of heat in comparison to citizens in other countries. Why is this?

I would posit that it comes down to the fact that American have been convinced that they need guns. Guns have inextricably been linked with American patriotism… and fear.

This is the only reason you have groups like the NRA suggesting that the only solution to gun violence in schools is to put guns in schools.

This is why any restriction on types of guns or ammunition is met with comparisons to Hitler.

This is why the idea of removing semi-automatic rifles is met with stories of women home alone defending their children from home invaders.

It’s why they portray government as the enemy.

Even after the most horrible tragedies guns are pumped up as a solution to problems rather than a problem themselves. The stats don’t bear this out however. In the United State in 2010 there was less than 300 justified homicides by private citizens. Citizens who killed others with guns while protecting themselves. Compare that to the over 8,000 murders, or the 20,000 people killed by suicide or by accident.

You are 26 times more likely to be killed than kill someone else defending yourself. You are 66 times more likely to be killed by gun misadventure than to kill someone trying to harm you. You’re more likely to be hit by lightning than fatally wound someone for threatening your safety.

One important thing to remember about an organization such as the NRA is that they are not merely an advocacy group. When they lobby congress on Second Amendment issues they are also lobbying for some of their biggest donors, gun manufacturers. When they claim that law-abiding citizens need access to guns for their safety they are writing the advertising copy for companies such as Smith & Wesson and Beretta. They know that fear sells guns.

Feb 01 2013

Leave a comment

Health

An Announcement… Of Sorts

So, taking a bit of a personal turn with this blog for the near future. My partner and I are expecting a child. We are about halfway along in this little journey and I’ll be tossing up a lot of subjects that I am encountering along the way.

I’ve written on women’s issues concerning childbirth and breastfeeding for several years now but actually having a child is certain to bring new perspectives, not to mention topics I may have never considered before. I guess you could say that I’m excited for this in multiple ways. Not only for the new addition to my life but for the opportunity to explore feminism and other social issues in new ways with my writing.

Hopefully, you will bear with me.

Dec 07 2012

Leave a comment

Gender & Sexuality

Again?

That is the first thing that came to mind when I saw the latest Conservative MP trying to keep abortion in the public eye. Again? Don’t they every tire of this topic that most Canadians simply are not interested in discussing? This time we are fear-mongering about “sex-selective” abortions.

Abortions based on sex? That’s horrible! We must start restricting abortion now!

Several problems with this little pet theory however.

The first is that you cannot prevent sex-selective abortions without punishing your everyday expectant parents. Most parents these days prefer to get a sex determination before a child is born. Usually this scan is performed by ultrasound at 20 weeks along with a general anatomy scan.

How exactly do you ban parents from finding out in these situations? Everyone has to wait until birth? No viewing the ultrasound or sending parents home with pictures? They might see something they shouldn’t you know.

We also put health decisions on the line, new advancements in blood tests now means that we can determine chromosomal abnormalities in the mother’s blood, long before it is apparent is any ultrasound. This test, however, also picks up whether the child is XX or XY. Should we start banning health checks because someone might discover the shape of the blastocyst’s future genitals?

The social conservative answer to these problems would be to just ban any abortion performed after the time the sex of the fetus can be determined. And if that eventually makes all abortions impossible, so be it.

Even if we enact laws to prevent sex-selective abortion, we have no proof that they will even work. We often ignore the fact that laws against this type of activity don’t help. Both India and China have laws that prevent sex-selective abortions, yet they are still the go-to examples of an out of control system. Sex-selective abortions have skewed populations in these countries yet legislation is reported to have barely made a dent in the problem.

The only way you could possible prevent sex-selective abortions would be to prevent abortion in general, and of course, that’s exactly what Conservatives want.