RSS Feed

Category Archives: Angry Rants

Fat Acceptance

Posted on

Saying that it might be ok for people to be fat is apparently pretty radical. No, not ok because they’re working on losing weight, but actually ok.

Did I just make you uncomfortable? Are you thinking of reasons to argue with me?  It’s hard to understand, right? I didn’t get it at first. I can honestly say I don’t really even completely get it now – I’m still filled with way too much self-loathing to really accept that statement.

But I’m trying. Because once you start thinking about it, all of a sudden the world presents itself to you in a new way. Suddenly, you realize people are making fat jokes everywhere. Every day you hear about the obesity epidemic and how we’re basically all going to die of diabetes. And you see constant weight loss ads, diet foods, and nutrition counters. Fat people are everywhere and the world won’t let you forget it.

What’s more, you realize that every discussion about fatness is framed as a discussion about health.  Only there’s never any distinction between fatness and poor health. They are one and the same. If you are fat, you must be unhealthy. It’s basically a fact. (Other facts: you’re a drain on the health care system, you’re setting a horrible example for your children who, in some cases, should probably just be removed from your care, you’re lazy, unlovable and gross.)  Once you start paying attention, it’s astonishing how hateful the world can be – whether they’re trying to be that way or not.

Today, someone new followed me on Twitter so I went to check out her page.  Immediately, I felt the need to pick a fight.

Driving around my hood today I suddenly noticed how many obese people there are. Why don’t people care about their health? :(

I’m not sharing that to embarrass the tweeter. When I called her on it, she acknowledged that it was unfair, but still didn’t seem to get it. I guess because it’s a radical concept. And isn’t that insane? That suggesting that people just might be meant to have different body types is hard for people to understand?

I have several problems with that tweet though. Let’s start with the obvious:

  1. Being fat is not the same thing as being unhealthy. Just as being skinny is not the same thing as being healthy.  If you can look at a person and determine their health then you must have magical powers. Congratulations for that.  But for the rest of you, you’re making assumptions based on one factor.

    My Wii tells me I’m obese. My doctor has never once found anything wrong with my health that is in any way attributed to my weight.  I’ve got perfect blood pressure. Normal cholesterol. I don’t have diabetes. I ride my bike every day.  And yes, I am trying to lose weight. I’ve been dieting since I was 12. Never, in all those years, has it ever been about getting healthy. I just wanted to be skinny.

    But there are plenty of skinny people out there. Those people who have rapid metabolisms that allow them to eat crappy food and never gain weight. And some of those people are unhealthy. I’ve met them.

    And that’s what’s so screwed up about all our discussions about weight: they always link fatness to poor health so that must mean skinniness, the ultimate goal, equals good health.  Maybe if the discussion was actually about health and didn’t conflate the two issues, people, in general, would be healthier.

  2.  Being fat is probably not a choice. If you’ve never struggled with your weight, it’s not because you’re so much better at life than I am, it’s because you’re lucky. You have genes that allow you to process foods differently. You really love broccoli and hate anything with calories. You have a body that’s naturally suited to run marathons. I don’t know what the deal is. But people are different. What works for you might not work the same for others.
  3. We accept so many other unhealthy things in our world that cause disease and don’t blame individuals for it. Let’s use cars as an example. Driving a car spews toxins into the atmosphere. It affects everyone’s health. But we’ve accepted that even though we’re going to try to improve emissions, cars are necessary in our lives.

But what about fat people’s health? What about it? No one is advocating for poor health.  I’m only suggesting that you not assume every fat person is in poor health.

I’m not an idiot. I know that bad foods and lack of exercise cause weight gain. And bad foods and lack of exercise also contribute to things like diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure.  But people can take care of their health and still be fat.  And accepting fatness is not the same thing as suggesting people should do bad things for their health.  If your diet or lack of exercise is hurting your body, then you should worry about that. But you don’t need the world to shame you for it.

As someone on the internet said: If shame could make people lose weight, everyone would be skinny.  I can guarantee you that every fat person in North America has been made to feel bad about his/herself at some point and it didn’t make a difference on the scale.  I can also tell you that tons of people are way better at shaming and hating themselves than any stranger will ever be. So your efforts are futile.

I’m not going to pretend that it’s not crazy hypocritical of me to suggest that you all be a bit more accepting of fat people when I’m going around blogging about trying to lose weight.  But I will say that I’m working on examining the way I think about these things, and I’ve come around a bit. I’m no longer hoping to be a size 4. That’s not going to happen. My body is not meant to be a size 4. That’s ok with me. Bring on the size 12. Or 14. Or whatever I end up being. What I’m saying, is that it’s my decision to make how I deal with my own body. It’s really none of your damn business.

Rape, Reporters, and Women

Posted on

Note: I wrote this after news of  CBS correspondent Lara Logan’s brutal assault surfaced, when amongst all the victim blaming, people had the nerve to ask ‘Should women reporters be allowed to report from war zones?’ I forgot to post it, but nothing’s changed since then

Asking what it means to be a women in a conflict zone suggests that it is the woman’s responsibility to protect herself from assault.  Asking if it’s appropriate for a woman to be there might as well as be asking if it is appropriate for women to be anywhere.

Even if women could prevent assaults just by taking precautions, the responsibility should never lie with her.  Rape is the responsibility of the men who commit it. Sexual Assault doesn’t ever come with the job.

Who’s afraid of Naomi Wolf?

Posted on

What the hell happened to Naomi Wolf?  Is there some crazy-making virus out there that inhibits logical thought? ‘Cause I’m stumped.

I thought her intentions were good (but her argument ridiculous) when she wrote her J’Accuse piece in the Huffington Post last month.  No, it didn’t make any sense. Obviously the solution to taking rape seriously is not to ignore rape allegations of men who are unpopular with governments.  But I thought that maybe – just maybe – she had taken her thinking cap off that day and was trying to do the right thing for all those women she works with.

Then came the TV debate with Jaclyn Friedman. You know the one, right? The one where Naomi Wolf said sex with a sleeping woman wasn’t rape? Yeah. Blew my mind in the worst possible way.

And still, I thought maybe the Twitter campaign, though hilarious, might be going just a little too far..  And then I read it.  This. An op-ed for the Guardian arguing in favour of publicly revealing rape accusers’ names because it would somehow prove that women are grown-ups too.

The only conclusion I can come to is that Naomi Wolf has lost her mind.  There’s really no other explanation for someone who argues that we should reveal the name of women who, even with this supposed anonymity, already get death threats, beat up, killed, yelled at, have their lives strewn over the internet, get called names, and get treated like liars…and those are the ones who speak up.  Wolf knows this.

There’s a reason that most rapes aren’t reported and that the ones that are rarely end in convictions.  So Naomi, until you can offer me a world in which a rape accuser is treated with respect, dignity and, most importantly, safety (or better yet, a world with out rape) don’t name names.  And please, stop talking.

Christina Hendricks takes it off.

Posted on

The weight, that is. Well maybe. She might be thinking of it. Or something.christina-hendricks-london-fog1

Which leads me to ask: Can we please stop talking about Christina Hendrick’s weight? When I google “Christina Hendricks weight” I get 266,000 results. It sounds like we need to change the conversation.

To what?

Well, for one, who made Hendricks the poster child for plus size women in Hollywood?  She certainly didn’t.  In fact, she’s said numerous times that she doesn’t like when people talk about her weight because it makes her self-conscious. So maybe we should talk about our obsession with women’s bodies as their entire value? Or perhaps we need to talk about our need to fetishize women who are different, while at the same time tearing them down?

And let’s stop pretending that we’re actually OK with “real” looking women in Hollywood (ignoring that Hendricks is far from the average “real” person). If we were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I get that we like to live vicariously through women like Hendricks: “If she’s OK with her body, then maybe I can be too.” But self-hate comes from within. It sure is nice to see healthy women on TV, but that’s not a solution.

Now someone out there is surely screaming “I don’t hate my body, you jerk! I just like that Hendricks is good role model.”

Great. But instead, let her be a role model for controlling her own body not for maintaining an idealized weight.  Because bullying a woman into maintaining a plus size so she can be your role model is just as bad as bullying her into being skinny.

 

A Letter to Jan Wong

Posted on

Re: “Get off the Road” by Jan Wong (September 2010)

Share the Road Sign by Hey Paul on flickr

Who decided that roads were only for fast-moving cars? Roads are connections between people and neighbourhoods. They’re public spaces.

It’s only fitting that roads be used for cultural events, fundraisers, or street parties – even if it slows people down. Engaging with each other in the streets fosters community.

Street festivals also bring in revenue and showcase the city to tourists. Pride week is estimated to bring in $100 million to the local economy. Caribana infuses more than $400 million into Ontario.

Supporting that doesn’t make me meek, or a caricature of a Canadian. It makes me proud that I love my city enough to want people to experience it, not drive right through.

Get over yourself, Jan. Take the subway, ride a bike, walk, or simply stay home and weed your own lawn. But don’t tell me that only drivers have a right to use our city.

This letter appeared in the November 2010 issue of Toronto Life Magazine.

Boobs for everyone!

Posted on

This is a blog about breastfeeding by someone without children.  It’s also a blog by someone who is clearly a judgmental bitch.  And yet, even with those admissions, I can’t bring myself to walk around accusing women of hurting their babies because they, for whatever reason, choose formula.

Some moms out there are infuriated that Old Navy has a shirt promoting (I guess?) formula.  The Globe and Mail trumps it up as a triumph for mommy-bloggers (which assumes that “mommy-bloggers” are just a bunch of women sitting in a room sharing a single thought – but that’s a different issue). I think it’s nonsense.

We’re not talking about feeding your child rat poison. We’re not talking about hitting, or abusing children.  We’re not even talking about smoking while pregnant like some crazy commenter suggested. We’re talking about formula.

It’s food.  It doesn’t have all the same benefits of breast milk, (it arguably has different ones) but it provides nutrition to children who need it.  Why they need it that way is none of your business!

The Nestle Scandal is often touted as an example of why formula is bad.  But formula wasn’t necessarily bad. Bad water, poverty, and exploitation of women was bad.

I was breastfed until I was two and a half or so – and it probably would have been longer had my mother not gotten sick.  That was her choice.  It certainly wasn’t a nutritional necessity.  I can’t for the life of me understand why one would want a child attached to her breast for 3 years, but hey, whatever works.

I happen to believe the doctors who say breastfeeding is good.  But that doesn’t mean that anything but breastfeeding is murder.

The minute women get pregnant our society treats them as commodities of procreation rather than human beings.  The whole point of feminism is that women should have choice, and value beyond their organs.

One of my favourite feminists, May Friedman, wrote this article (PDF) about her thoughts on breastfeeding.  It’s enlightening and it’s better than anything I can write.

Think what you want. Get angry even.  But keep it to yourself.  Mothers have a hard enough time as it is.

The Trouble with Androgyny

Posted on

Girl babies should be given androgynous names to do better in business. I’ve heard this idea before but was reminded when reading this CBC article about a woman who posed as a man and made more money writing than she had as a woman.

I’ve actually met people who named their daughters something androgynous to somehow better prepare them for the future. And while the trick might serve the girls well in business (at least, as long as they don’t ever have to speak to anyone or meet them in person) it’s just another example of a bastardized feminism that teaches girls to get respect by being more like men (or how we perceive men to be) rather than actually demanding respect for what they are: Women.

We see it everywhere. With the rise of raunch culture, women learn to fuck like a man in television shows like Sex and the City, and girls grow up thinking that posing for playboy is the best way to express their sexuality. To quote Ariel Levy:

There is a widespread assumption that, simply because my generation of women has the good fortune to live in a world touched by the feminist movement, that means everything we do is magically imbued with its agenda. But it doesn’t work that way. “Raunchy” and “liberated” are not synonyms. It is worth asking ourselves if this bawdy world of boobs and gams we have resurrected reflects how far we’ve come, or how far we have left to go.

This cultural shift erases diversity in our understanding of women by disallowing the things that are perceived as traditionally “feminine.” Admitting emotion is bad, femininity is weak, and sexual passivity means you’re not really in touch with your desires.

While many women may want to have tons of uncommitted sex, never talk about feelings, and juggle long work hours with families, they’re not all women.  Women, like men, cannot be understood as a singular group. They have similarities – some stronger than others – but they are not homogeneous.

Men get it too.  Though they still live a privileged life in many ways, the expectation that women act like “men” also assumes that all men are the caricatures we see on television shows.  While asserting their new aggressive “feminine” side, women have learned to devalue traits in men that were once considered traits of women – all of which are understood as weaknesses.

Equal treatment is often confused for sameness. But there’s no harm in actually admitting that men and women are different. The harm comes in the value placed on that difference, and the perceptions of what those differences mean.

Unless we stop lowering ourselves to some mythical level of sameness rather than expecting the world to raise itself up to a level of understanding, acceptance, and celebration nothing is ever going to change.  But just in case, maybe I’ll change my name to John.



Forgivers of the Unforgiveable

Posted on

Seeing that Roman Polanski was a trending topic on Twitter today when news broke that Switzerland would not extradite him to the US didn’t surprise me, but it made me sad.  Every time I’ve heard his name in the past year, the familiar knot in my stomach returns.  It’s not just that his crime disgusts me (though it does), or that he’s lived a life of luxury for more than 30 years, it’s the apologists who really make me sad.

It hurts me that we live in a world where news organizations will describe his crime as “unlawful sex” instead of rape, and 138 people in the film industry will sign a petition demanding his “immediate release.”  It boggles my mind that being an artist can somehow trump being a child-rapist.

So since the world seems to need a constant reminder, here you go:
Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child by Kate Harding

Reminder: Roman Polanski fled sentencing by Tracy Clark-Flory

And just for good measure,

Snips And Snails And The Unbearable Heaviness Of Roman Polanski by Catherine Connors

Fiasco!

Posted on
Capitalism Isn't Working http://www.flickr.com/photos/velsfi/

Courtesy of stuff_and_nonsense on flickr

fi·as·co
–noun,plural-cos, -coes.
1.  a complete and ignominious failure.

It’s been said MANY times already, but putting the G20 summit in the centre of Canada’s biggest city is one of the dumbest things that Stephen Harper has ever done (Fake Lake falls under the umbrella).  And if it weren’t for [what I hope to be] the massive fallout over the enormous waste of money, I’d think he put it here just to punish us.

As if it weren’t bad enough that a 10 foot fence, at a cost of $5.5 million, and an illegal security company will prevent Torontonians from actually using their own city, the place will be virtually shut-down anyway.  I can’t fly a kite.  I can’t go to the CN tower or a baseball game.  Oh yeah, and I won’t be able to call anyone if something goes wrong because my cell-phone signal will be jammed.

The weekend is approaching quickly, and everyday something new and stupid is revealed.

The G20 brings out protestors with good reason.  It’s a chance for people to get the attention (at least, in theory) of the most powerful world leaders, and raise awareness of important issues like poverty, foreign aid, and the state of the world economy.

But with all the crap that Torontonians will need to put up with, I won’t be surprised if people come out to protest the waste of money, excessive security, and loss of freedom.

Frankly, the summit fiasco is enough to warrant protest.  But will this overshadow essential world issues that need attention?

Time will tell.  But so far, the media has been distracted with the small stuff.

Useless Products

Posted on

This commercial pisses me off.  Not only is the product a huge environmental failure (as if we don’t have enough already), but it’s banking on irrational fear.

Just like the ridiculous fear found in this useless Lysol soap dispenser:

I’m sure the folks at Lysol and Kleenex said “Of course this is a useless product.  Soap dispensers might be dirty, but people only touch them before washing their hands.  Let’s make it anyway and just be sure to scare them. Oh, and you know what the world needs more of? Garbage! And fewer trees!”

Useless, fear-mongering, consumerism.

Female Genital Cutting: Would you let someone ‘nick’ your daughter?

Posted on
https://www.arpg.ca/biaag/feature.aspx?id=1

Because I am a Girl Tee-Shirts can be purchased online from Plan Canada

There’s a great episode of The Simpsons where Bart makes a collect call to Australia to see which direction their water drains.  After the call leaves an Australian family with a huge phone bill, the Simpson family gets flown to Australia so Bart can make a public apology.

The curveball, they discover, is that Bart must also get a booting — with a very large boot — from the Prime Minister.  After a string of antics, chases and negotiations, the Australians tell the Simpsons that the Prime Minister wants “just wants to kick Bart once, through the gate, with a regular shoe.”

Like any good mother, Marge refuses.  It wasn’t the severity of the kick that mattered, it was the desire to commit a violent act on her child.

Though the example is silly, the principle is not.  It’s a parent’s duty to protect their child.

When I think of the girls whose parents have sent them to have their genitals butchered I’m horrified and dumbfounded.  The thought is so abhorrent that I cannot understand the parents as anything other than child abusers.

Female Genital Cutting (a.k.a. Female Genital Mutilation) is illegal in the United States but it was revealed in a recent article on Salon that it still happens in the U.S. – either in secret or by sending their girls overseas to be cut. In a lovely turn of events, that article inspired new legislation in the U.S. that makes it illegal for families to travel outside of the US to have their daughters’ genitals mutilated.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has gone in another direction.  In an effort to limit the amount of physical harm, the AAP recommends a compromise(PDF): give the girls a “ritual nick” instead of banning any genital tampering in order to “build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities.”

Their motivations are good, and from a purely medical standpoint I can understand the AAP’s position.   After all, the less physical damage the better.  They do not condone FGC and they do want to want to prevent girls from being sent overseas to be cut.

But while I understand the desire to reduce harm, it’s irresponsible of the AAP to suggest a compromise in the name of cultural sensitivity and understanding tradition when the tradition is so seriously flawed.

Medical opinions are valued and taken as fact by most of society.  So while the statement by the AAP may be based only on medical information, it has social implications – namely it affects the public’s understanding of a women’s right to control her own body.

There are so many cultural differences and traditions we should be sensitive to (and even celebrating).  Violence is not one of them.

The physical harm caused to women from traditional FGC is an obvious enough reason to be opposed to the practice. It is painful (often performed with unsafe objects and without anaesthesia), unsanitary, dangerous, and it causes a slew of health problems including infections and infertility. It also prevents women from enjoying sex and safely giving birth.

But the reasons behind the practice are also important.  As noted by the AAP in their report: “FGC becomes a physical sign of a woman’s marriageability, with social control over her sexual pleasure by clitorectomy and over reproduction by infibulations (sewing together the labia so that the vaginal opening is about the width of a pencil).”

The intent of FGC is to prevent women’s sexual autonomy and control their lives.

By compromising we’re essentially saying the tradition and the motivations behind it are OK.

No matter how much physical damage is done, female genital cutting is a violent act.  We wouldn’t accept a compromise on other issues of violence against women (“Actually guys, it’s OK if you hit her just a little bit to satisfy your interests, as long as it doesn’t leave a very big mark.”) so why this one?

Education on the consequences of FGC is essential. Healthcare and support of women who have already been cut is also important.  But even one more cut is too much.

My Cranky Commentary on the State of Baseball in Toronto

Posted on

Seattle Municipal Archives Flickr streamI’m a pretty big Jays fan so I’m always excited for the home opener.  The dome is packed full of fair-weather fans who, for one night, cheer and shout for their hometown team.  There’s always a great energy in the dome that gets me (and maybe the players) revved up.  So even though I know the masses are only temporary,  I appreciate their support.

Well, I did… until this year.

There has always been questionable behaviour — at all games, not just the opener — but with so many more people in the dome on opening night, I was overwhelmed.

For a sport as civilized as baseball, the fans in Toronto really suck.

For one thing, they boo everything.  Not just bad calls, or a player getting hit.  Not just for a really big screw-up.  No. They boo any player they don’t like, anytime the visiting team scores a run or an umpire calls “safe.”  Basically, anytime something happens that is not a point for the home team, people boo.

And closer to my lustful thoughts heart, they booed Alex Rios.  Apparently people were mad at him for not being great in Toronto the past two seasons.  I admit, he wasn’t great.  But he had been great in the seasons before, and he never made any dickish statements suggesting that he hated Toronto or the Jays.  He just had a bad run.  Besides, now he’s playing poorly for Chicago.

But worse than seeing people shout at my Alex, it really ruins the game.  The constant boos fill the air with negativity.

Instead, I’d like to see people cheer for the sport: great plays — even when they’re by the opposing team (as long as my team doesn’t lose of course) — should be applauded because they’re fantastic to watch. Check out this unusual throw by Mark Buehrle of the Chicago White Sox.  That’s great baseball!

Of course it would be easy to miss a great throw like that because of all the people blocking my view!

It’s not that they’re standing because they’re so excited and want to cheer.  They’re standing to go get beer, go to the bathroom, or talk to friends in another row.  They’re not watching baseball.  And yet this could easily be solved by just waiting for a change in batter or inning.

Where did the etiquette go?  People know not to talk in movies or in the middle of a speech.  Why is this different?

But the worst offense happens when the game is moving slowly and the crowd gets rowdy.  Suddenly, someone has the brilliant idea to throw a paper airplane on the field.  Then another person sees that and wants to compete.  Soon there are dozens of airplanes littering the stands and the field.

I’ve ranted about this before.  The idea that throwing things on the field that a) could hurt players and b) could cost the team to forfeit blows my mind.  But it is because somehow The Jays have attracted a “fan base” in this city of people who aren’t fans of the game.

I know not everyone likes baseball. That’s cool.  There are lots of things I don’t like.  But I don’t show up at your event an act like an ass, so maybe you could do me the favour of skipping mine.

But if you insist on coming, play by the rules.

They’re not Single Ladies Either

Posted on

This article from the Globe and Mail suggests that the father of this now famous YouTube video is taking too hard a line on his child’s exploration of gender.  (This article from Salon thinks the dad is a big jerk.)

I think the video is hilarious.  And I don’t think the father is actually trying to stifle his child’s sexuality.  I think something just slipped out, it hurt the kid’s feelings and he apologized.

But if the argument is that we should let the boy be a “single lady,” are we also arguing that the girls should be (or already are) “single ladies” too?  Because that sounds pretty problematic to me.

I won’t care if my future son wears glitter and sings show tunes.  But I will care if my future daughter thinks that putting a ring on it is her life’s goal, and that trying to make an ex jealous enough to marry her is the makings of a healthy relationship.  But maybe that’s just me.

Cuz if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Don’t be mad once you see that he want it
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it

The Tedium of the Never Ending Bike Lane Debate

Posted on

The bike lane discussion is getting rather tedious, isn’t it?

It boggles my mind that the idea of keeping citizens safe is up for debate.  Maybe debate is the wrong word.  How about “Hate Campaign”? Because in this case, one side (cyclists) is fighting for the right to exist, while the other side (people who want the road to be exclusively for motorized vehicles) is fighting to rule the road with no regard for anyone who might get in their way.

And somehow, bike lanes appear to have become the election issue for Toronto in 2010.

Let’s not kid ourselves here: People who oppose bike lanes oppose cyclists on the road in general, not just in certain places.

Of the five major mayoral candidates, zero have taken the position that bike lanes need to exist even if it slows cars down.  Sure, Sarah Thompson says she wants bike lanes, but she doesn’t want them on Jarvis (despite it having already been decided).  And George Smitherman claims to be in favour of bike lanes, but wants to put construction of lanes “on hold” so that he can assess the situation.

On the more extreme side of things, Rocco Rossi thinks bikes should never be on arterial roads and Rob Ford hates cyclists. Oh, and the only thing Giorgio Mammoliti knows about cyclist in Toronto is that one time he saw someone kick a car (but I guess didn’t bother to find out any more of the story or watch any other cyclists).

While I understand that these candidates will have to face some angry Torontonians who cannot fathom giving up part of the road to others, I don’t understand why they have made pandering to car crusaders integral to their campaigns.  Don’t they think that all citizens of Toronto have a right to use this city and be protected?

Some opposed to bike lanes suggest that people should be using Toronto’s ravines or secondary roads for cycling.  Both ideas sound great for recreational cycling on a Saturday afternoon, but neither is going to get me where I need to go — at least not in a reasonable time.

The ravines only cover a very small part of the city and generally go in a straight line. That’s not particularly helpful when trying to get to work downtown.  And biking on side streets is often inefficient because many side streets are filled with stop signs at every corner, or they change direction to reduce traffic or simply end.

Bike lanes – although the safety of many in this city is questionable – exist to make cycling safer and to help the flow of traffic.  Cyclists are entitled to take up an entire lane – they’re a vehicle after all.  But we all know perfectly well how drivers would react to cyclists actually exercising that right on a regular basis (I can say, from experience, that it often involves honking or pushing cyclists to the fringes).  Bike lanes actually help cars by keeping bikes contained to one side and allowing cars to move freely.

I grew up in a car-culture town, got my license on my 16th birthday and my first car shortly after.  I couldn’t understand how anyone could exist without a car.  And then I moved to Toronto.

In Toronto, the streets are narrow, people are everywhere, and driving is nearly impossible in much of downtown.

But not once did I have the reaction that bikes were to blame for traffic congestion, or that bigger roads should be built to accommodate more cars.  Not once.

Instead I thought “Toronto is just not built for cars.  It is way too time-consuming and stressful to drive in Toronto every day.  I better look into alternatives”

Those alternatives weren’t just biking (it took me six years to get on a bike in Toronto) – they were transit and walking.

But I can spout out the benefits of cycling until I’m blue in the face.  Those who are opposed don’t seem to be budging on their ignorant opinion.

And those people are entitled to their opinions.  But opinions and policy are (or should be) different things.  Politicians are elected to do what is best for the population as a whole, not just for a few cranky drivers.  And while city councillors are elected by a portion of the city of Toronto, councillors are still responsible for the city as a whole, not just the desires of their loudest constituents.

I know lots of drivers are respectful on the road, and I know some cyclists are not.  It’s really not about that.  What it is about is that the law says that bikes are vehicles and therefore have the right to be on the road.  And if they have the right to be on the road, they have the right to be safe while using it.  There can’t be a debate.

I keep thinking that at some point people will give into rational thought and realize that transportation based exclusively on single-passenger cars is no longer feasible with the populations and environmental situation we’re in today.

But apparently nothing can be left to “reasonable” when the thing in question might force people to change.

Something is going to have to give.

Until a Mayoral candidate steps up and says that all citizens of Toronto – not just those with cars – matter, then I’m not interested in what any of them has to say.

Check your facts, Margaret. Women bloggers exist.

Posted on

Dear Margaret Wente,

Thanks for reminding me that my vagina keeps control of my need to have, and express opinions.  Clearly, I had forgotten.

But it seems that you’ve also forgotten something very important: you write an opinion column and you’re a woman.

What am I missing here?

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and suppose that maybe you were too busy for any of that pesky “journalism” stuff like research, but women blog.  Women blog a lot.

I don’t have any numbers, but I do have some experience.  I have been blogging for years.  I know lots of women who blog.  There are entire conventions for women who blog, books about women who blog, listing sites, and of course, the blogs.

Salon has an section of paid women bloggers, where brilliantly smart women like Kate Harding, Tracy Clark-Flory and Mary Elizabeth Williams write about their opinions daily.

I would like to avoid using “women” as a category because it cannot express the differences of the 3 billion women on earth, and declaring their sameness by virtue of their reproductive organs isn’t very useful (it’s a little like telling me that women, by nature, don’t like sports, action movies, the colour blue…and on and on and on).  But without getting into the details of why women blog, it’s safe to say that there is a wide variety of female opinion on the internet.

You don’t have to like their blogs or agree with their opinions, but suggesting that they don’t exist is just stupid.

So I have to wonder if there is something else that you don’t like about the idea of women bloggers.  Is it that you look down on blogging in general? (Is this like the time Gwyneth Paltrow referred to Jennifer Aniston as “that TV girl”) Or just that you don’t like women to express opinions outside of the confines of a major newspaper?  Maybe you don’t want to believe that women need a space to share, bond, rant, express, or pontificate. Is that it?

You said this in your piece:

“Do you ever wonder why, long after the rest of journalism has become pretty much gender neutral, the talk shows and opinion pages are still dominated by male voices?”

The answer is “sort of.”  Actually, what I wonder is how is it possible to think we’ve come so far, and yet women are still underrepresented in many professions?  I’d be more inclined to think it might have something to do with women getting invited to the metaphorical party less often.  Maybe because people (ahem, like you) think that women just aren’t interested/capable/smart enough to give opinions, they aren’t offered the jobs at the same rate as men.  Just a thought.

Or maybe not.  But one thing is true: Just like you say in your article, “Margaret Wente is an idiot.”

Love,

Lizz

*note to reader: I know being a jackass is kind of Margaret Wente’s thing, but sometimes I just can’t bite my tongue.  Sigh.  I wish I could be a better woman.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers