Kyra, while you may think that I missed your point, I think it may be the other way around.
I started off by saying that I appreciated the article, and the main point. I really did like the article over all. I recognized that you were speaking in favour of universal rights.
But my point is that the pervasiveness of incorrect statistics makes it impossible to move ahead. While you may support universal rights, I couldn't help but get the impression that you thought men were more violent. You were the first person who derailed your own argument by posting statistics about the gender differences in an article that would have been much stronger without even mentioning statistics. And then you used it to argue that men need better access to mental care facilities (while that may be true, it is unrelated to the domestic violence issue). Men need equal access to mental health care, and that can be clearly understood through basic human rights without making the suggestion that it is because men are more mentally unstable as evidenced by domestic violence statistics.
The last statistic I saw, in a video with Erin Pizzey, was 1 male death for each 2 female deaths due to Domestic Violence. While that is more, I would say it is certainly pretty close.
And I hope you take this opportunity to re-read the last section of my earlier reply, because I think you may have skipped over it. I specifically said that it was not an issue of who is the baddest guy. I definitely made it clear that I did not view any skewed statistics as being "women being worse than men" or vice versa.
Like I originally said - I liked the article. I appreciated your efforts.
Well, Kyra, I guess you weren't aware of how I had already praised you for this article on two other forums (here and here). It was from there that some of the men's rights advocates have come and commented here. You'll find that some of them are deeply suspicious (or contemptuous) of feminists, and for them, it seems to me that the driving force behind that attitude is feminist indifference to male pain.
In my opinion, you have shown courage merely for writing this column. What impressed me more than anything, however, was that you didn't just advocate for equal rights for men, but you challenged people who believe in women's rights to actually lobby for men's rights! That is what got my attention. I, for one, would like to see the following policy changes which would improve everyone's lives:
- States that prohibit couples counseling when one of the partners has been found guilty of domestic violence are effectively perpetuating a vicious cycle. If only the man is challenged on his violence, this will merely embolden the woman if she too is violent. There's a spiritual, personal and psychological dynamic that is not being addressed between two people who should love each other. Current policy seeks only to separate the parties from each other; as far as healing the relationship, they go so far as to actively impede that. If you want to lobby for men's rights, then please speak out against laws that bar troubled and violent couples from receiving counseling together as a couple.
- If men incur injury from female violence less frequently than women incur injury from male violence, does that negate the non-injurious pain that men feel when women hit, slap, punch or kick them with impunity? No sympathetic woman should hear about this and think to herself, "Suck it up, be a man." It hurts! You can't just let things escalate until there's a murder, and then claim, "See? Women have it worse across the board; all this time, the male perpetrators were using violence instrumentally." If we want to combat domestic violence, then we must challenge violent women with equal vigor. They wouldn't be perpetrating if they were the victims of instrumental patriarchal terrorism; they would be too afraid, wouldn't they? Half of all domestic violence is reciprocal, and of this reciprocal violence women perpetrate more frequently, according to a 2007 study by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (click here to read it) as published in the American Journal of Public Health. Of the half that was non-reciprocal (i.e. battering/instrumental violence), 70% of the perpetrators were female. And yet despite this, when a woman beats a man there is this attitude that because he is less likely than her to be injured, his pain is inconsequential. If you want to lobby for a change, then speak out in favor of more services for male victims -- and public acknowledgment of their plight.
There are many other areas that I wish women would advocate on behalf of men, too... Child custody is one (and your article covered that; thank you!) but also child support. In the U.S., there are certain states that will require a man to pay child support for a child that the government knows is not his (even despite a paternity test), merely because the child was born to the man's wife while the couple was still married. Pennsylvania is one such state. There are men there who are paying child support to the mother, who has reunited with the biological father and they are living together, receiving child support from a duped ex-husband. Lobby on things like that. Mandatory DNA testing at birth would eliminate all paternity fraud; please lobby on that too.
If I seem like I'm coming on a little strong, it's only because for men there is a whole iceberg of unmentionable pain and injustice just underneath the surface which men's advocates are all too aware exists. When some feminists browbeat men about the thousands of years of patriarchal oppression, it tends to have a smothering effect on any acknowledgment of the pain that men feel too. Please use such rhetoric (if you use it) with more precision and greater care. If you ever find yourself feeling like high-fiving a fellow-sister after slamming the patriarchy in print, it's at that moment that you should look inward and ask yourself if you have forgotten anyone.
This is a critical issue you both raise - my personal experience has told me that women are as likely to commit hand-to-hand violence as often, if not more so, than men. At first.
But I would argue the stats on how many women actually die - as compared to their male counterparts - belies the "tools" argument. How can so many more women be killed through domestic violence than men, if we're both wielding guns? (I'm capable of research, too, as it happens).
And hand-to-hand threats are so much more compellling when you are defenseless in the face of someone who can kill you than they are from someone against whom you KNOW you can win.
Be that as it may, I'd suggest you're losing sight of the forest for the trees, here ... in case everyone missed it altogether, I was advocating FOR feminists to advocate FOR men's rights.
Can we not focus on that, rather than on the blame game?
For once, for this moment in time, can we not make it about agreeing, rather than further polarization and accusation?
Can it stop being, just for a moment, men-vs-women, and start being about humanity for each other and for itself?
I spoke out in FAVOUR of universal rights - and the argument has descended to "who is the baddest bad guy".
You quoted a figure from a 1994 crime report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Crime reports do not indicate the prevalence of domestic violence, because they are not based on representative samples. The samples are only taken from a subset of people who call the police and report a crime, which is not reflective of the perpetrating or victimized population as a whole. Therefore, crime reports are not generalizable to the public at large; you can't rely on such reports and accurately say that X percent of domestic violence is committed by a particular sex.
Another flaw with crime reports is that they are not collected reliably. How much faith would you put in a taste test for Coke vs. Pepsi if the outcome of your answers to the test was a possible arrest and eviction from your home? Imagine one of these companies claiming that 92 percent of taste test surveys indicate a preference for one product over the other, under those conditions. People who are visited by police officers modify their answers to the officers' questions in order to effect the outcome that they're seeking. If they're trying to cause an arrest, then they'll say what they think is necessary to get the officer to make an arrest, whether it is accurate or not. Who determines what is accurate anyway? An accuser? A prosecutor? A jury? Crime reports reveal only who has been accused, arrested, charged and convicted, not necessarily who has actually perpetrated.
There is a body of hundreds of scientifically conducted studies which indicates gender parity in domestic violence perpetration. These studies are based on survey data rather than crime reports, and that's why the data are more reliable; the perpetrators and victims have far less incentive to lie, because they have nothing to gain by their answers. Turns out that the perpetrators freely admit their perpetration in those conditions (free of the possibility of arrest), and the results indicate that female perpetration meets or exceeds male perpetration in frequency (if not potency). The female perpetrators admit to it themselves, under non-coercive conditions!
If you have unreliable data, then the conclusions of causation that you make will be invalid. If you say that 92% of perpetrators are male, then you might infer from that figure that by challenging males and addressing male behavior you'll somehow reduce the rate of domestic violence. The claim of causation is flawed in this case, because you're assuming that the problem is solely or primarily with males, and therefore the solution solely or primarily with males, even though the 92% figure is based on unreliable data.
If you pit the reliability of crime reports against the scientific rigors of published research, I'd take the published research every time because it is more credible. A researcher's entire career is on the line when he or she publishes a study using unreliable data collection methods and invalid conclusions about causation or correlation. It's brutal when a scientist publishes a boneheaded error about their data; they lose funding, prestige, opportunities, and credibility.
Click here to see a list of 47 studies, published in respectable scholarly journals, and these studies collectively have a sample of more than 247,000 people -- spanning 28 years. Moreover, all of these particular studies are national surveys or representative sample studies. Therefore, the claims emerging from these studies are generalizable to a larger population. And all of them (except one -- a crime report) indicate either gender parity in domestic violence perpetration, or higher levels of female perpetration.
And those are just national and representative samples. There are actually more than 270 published works (full list here) with an aggregate sample size now exceeding 365,000 including national and representative samples, international samples, case studies and reviews which date from the current time (2009 to be specific) all the way back to 1978. And the data conclusively show that there is gender parity in domestic violence perpetration.
If you want to attack the reliability or validity of these studies, then why not publish your attack in the same journals (or the same types of journals) in which the studies were published? In that case, your critique would have to use scientific criteria rather than ideology alone. A scientifically-constructed (and published) critique is surely the harder route; it's much easier to simply claim on a blog that 92 percent of DV perpetrators are male, and rely on unreliable crime reports to confirm your preconceived hypothesis. But handling things this way sure does undermine your credibility, compared to that of published experts in the field of domestic violence. In that field, there is consensus based on hard data.
Not only is there consensus on gender parity of DV in the academic realm, but you may be surprised to know that the founder of the domestic violence shelter movement -- Erin Pizzey -- has aligned with this consensus (and has maintained since the early 1970s that many of the women who arrived at her refuges were themselves equally or more violent than the men who they had left). If even the founder of an international movement of domestic violence shelters confirms the reality of gender parity in domestic violence perpetration -- and she has worked directly with victims for decades -- then shouldn't you acknowledge the same?
I appreciated the first few paragraphs of the article, and am glad that many people are starting to recognize the need for equality. But I don't think this can happen when we continue to lie to ourselves and to believe lies told to us.
You said, "Men are statistically far more violent than women (90 per cent of all physical domestic abuse is perpetrated by men)".
Not only is this statistic wrong, it is grossly wrong.
In the statistical analysis, men are shown as the victims of domestic violence slightly more often than women, but not a statistically significant amount to make the claim that it is anything other than equal between the genders.
In it, they make it clear that approximately 50% of all domestic violence is reciprocal - both partners are violent. Of the remaining 50% of domestic violence, 70% is perpetrated by women - men are the victims.
Here is another link to an article on the battered men website that references a National Violence Against Women study: http://www.batteredmen.com/suprmyth.htm
In this one, it is clearly shown that men are not only the victims of domestic violence more, but that they are severely harmed by knives, guns or other objects more. The point being that the mentality that views men as aggressors in domestic violence situations relies on the view that men are larger, stronger and more capable. It completely ignores the fact that humans are the most successful species on Earth because of our ability to use tools - and aggressors, regardless of gender, have this ability too.
This one is an article about Erin Pizzey, the woman who started domestic violence shelters. In it, it discusses how she is now ostracized by the community for her views that both genders are equally capable of violence, and for her desire to offer services to both genders.
In another video interview of Erin Pizzey, I recall her saying that Domestic Violence against women is a $1 billion/year industry now. There is a lot of investment to ensure that people continue to believe that women are the victims and men are the aggressors. The issue isn't that men don't have access to mental facilities, it is that both genders are equally violent (regardless of the statistics I quoted, I am not going to suggest that women are more violent - more/less are not words that we should use in this situation).
You have provided me with what is now my all-time favourite quote.
Thank you for your educated, articulate response to an issue that remains so intergral to our society today... and, not incidentally, for voicing a perspective I believe in, but was ill-prepared to express to its fullest.
Adrian and I may not agree on all things, but I KNOW he is as delighted as I when readers respond with considered, supported arguments like yours.
Our primary goal is to provide nutritious food for thought - yours was well-balanced and healthy.
Kyra and Adrian, thanks for the great interchange of ideas. You both make some very good points.
Kyra, the "bra burning" thing was made up by a hostile media and has been accepted into our urban mythology as fact. Just so you know.
Adrian, men might also have been systemic victims as you express; but they were (and sometimes still are) also individual perpetrators. I am of the generation of the second wave of feminism, once we had the vote thanks to a few generations earlier. It is hard for younger folks to believe the below, but in my lifetime, my friends and I fought for these among many other things:
* For women to be able to be FM radio announcers and news anchors. When I was in college, it was thought that audiences would not want to listen to a woman because women were not seen as authoritative.
* For women to be able to run in the Boston and Olympic and other marathons. Women were forbidden, perhaps because race organizers thought if women did, our "lady innards" would fall out. Or whatever.
* For women to be able to work in "non-traditional" jobs such as plumbers, electricians, parks maintenance workers, miners, carpenters, because they made a LOT more money than in traditional "women's jobs." (Which were: secretary, teacher, nurse, librarian, and stay at home mom. That was pretty much it. Explains why a lot of brilliant women in the 1950's sucked down Valium and/or stuck their heads in their gas ovens.) Even when women could legally hold "men's" jobs, the individual men in those jobs made it absolute hell for the women pioneers in them. I could go on, but briefly it ranged from outright verbal and/or sexual harassment; to withholding information necessary to be successful that they shared with other men; to vandalizing lockers and vehicles; to stealing the women's tools; to spreading lies about the honesty or work ethics of their female coworkers; to violence against them. This is where it got very personal indeed.
Adrian, if women got mad, maybe if you put yourself in those shoes for a minute you might see why. It happened (and still happens in some places) and there is no sense in denying it. Denying it makes those of us who lived through it and gave our life's blood trying to change it for ourselves and the generations to follow pretty PO'd!
* For girls and young women to have the same opportunities as boys in school-sponsored sports. In my youth, girls were only allowed to play half-court basketball. Girls sports were non-existent or unfunded and if coached at all, they were coached by phys ed teacher who volunteered their time. Parents drove my high school girls' basketball team in their PE uniforms to local schools for games, as there was no money for buses, much less anything else. Even though the boys lost every game that season and the girls won every one, the girls had to fight to get ANY indoor gym practice time and practiced on the asphalt courts in the rain, while the boys got uniforms, transportation, lodging, cheerleaders, pep squad, coverage in the school paper, university scholarships... the same went for any other girls' sports. (Fortunately, after all these years of fighting for equal opportunity, you can see some of the results of change by the performance of Canadian women in the recent Winter Olympics!)
I just spent the weekend visiting with a friend who is only one generation ahead of me. Her passion at university was geology, and she pursued that until she was told that while she could major in it, women students could not go to field camp (required for graduation). That also meant she could not actually get a job as a geologist. So she switched her major to one of the only professions open to her as a woman, library science, became a school librarian, and spent summers in the field assisting her geologist husband - for no pay and no recognition.
I say all this to point out that the need for feminism is not some relic of ancient history: it happened within the lifetimes of people you know. Things are so much better now than they were thirty years ago and as recently as twenty years ago. Feminism has had positive outcomes not just for women but also for men - it is more accepted for men to be softer, to show emotion, to be more involved with their children, to even stay home and be the primary caretaker. Young men today have always lived in a world where there were women generals, astronauts, CEOs, mountain climbers, news anchors, editors, doctors, carpenters, electricians, marathoners, laborers, and hockey players - as well as stay at home moms... and there have been male nurses, librarians, personal assistants, and elementary school teachers, which not too long ago was very rare. So there is not as much energy on the whole thing with younger guys. But it has not always been so.
Make no mistake: there are still pockets of resistance, and there is still much work to do to level the playing field. There are those who will turn back the clock if they can get away with it. The great American Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Complacency from men or women is dangerous. Guys, if you like a little more freedom in expressing who you are as a human being, be alert as to those who would stuff you back in to some kind of masculine jello-mold. And women, if you like having choices about your life's work and direction... pay attention.
Thanks for considering these points of view.
Here's one of my favorite quotes that pretty much sums it up:
“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”
Once more, into the breach...My suggestion of 'masculinism' was ironic--an alternate misnomer. No serious intent there! When I refer to 'traditional feminine virtues' I don't mean to imply that all women can or should have them, but that our common cultural life has been defined too often by traditional male warrior traits that don't fit so well into the modern world! In other words, we ARE on the same page! Or are we....?
I think that's taking the word out of context - feminism was and is about women gaining, not masculinity, but equal rights.
It's about valuing the feminine members of our society to the same degree we value the masculine. So, no, we didn't name it after you guys. We made it about us. WE said that WE would define what "feminine" means ... as is our right.
It's about being 'persons' ... in every context of the word.
What if I don't WANT to exhibit 'traditional feminine virtues', Adrian? Shouldn't that be my right; my choice? The very qualities my community values in me (and hence my paper) are traditionally associated with men, not women - outspoken, honest, critical when necessary, strong, resiliant ...
Feminism didn't force that on me, nor did a broken system ...it's what I want; it's my choice ... a choice, thanks to feminism, that I have the social, legal right to make, just as you have the right to make your choices in your life.
I refuse to accept the interpretation that says that's a bad thing.
I don't WANT to be in a classroom or kitchen, nurturing and displaying empathy... I want to be right where I am, thank you. (Although I'd prefer not to expect to make 63 cents on every dollar a comparable man makes ... feminism still has work to do ...)
Stepping away from traditional qualities ... which are no more than stereotypes, when you get right down to it ... is the whole point.
I agree - the system sucked for men and women alike, who were robbed of the joy of being partners; who had stolen from them their individuality and right to choose.
I will defend feminism with my dying breath - not femi-Nazis, but true feminism that was about changing a system that saw women degraded and de-humanized. Like emancipation in the U.S., feminism was vital to our collective survival and well-being; critical to our progress as a society, and won us a great deal more than gender-based workplace competition and kids raised by strangers.
Setting that aside, I also agree it's not about demonizing men - it was a codified societal, legal and 'moral' system to which we ALL, as a society, fell prey. Men were victimized by it, too, I don't argue that.
Even if one did blame the men of that generation - and I don't - they're no longer with us, so it's hardly relevant now.
Turn-about is NOT, and never was, fair play. Hating and belittling and seeking dominion over men creates a system just as broken, as ugly, and as backward as the one we rejected when we embraced feminism.
I know of a great many men who consider themselves feminists - in that they seek women's rights in the broader world (where female subjagation remains epidemic), and universal rights here at home.
Now, the goal is equality...we're on that same page, too.
If 'feminism', in practise, had meant bringing traditional feminine virtues like empathy and nurturing to the forefront of society, I'd be all for the term. As it worked out, though, the term is largely associated with women gaining 'male' rights. So why not call it 'masculinism' or something similar? The world, really, needs more feminine input in its politics and economy--not twice as many 'men' out there scraping around for a buck. Right now the world is more 'masculine' (in terms of aggression, competition, lack of empathy, etc) than it's ever been, and we're all paying the price.
Gulp. Well, I'll take this on, I guess. Yes, I challenge you to show any evidence that the old patriarchal system produced any real benefits for men in terms of well-being, health, relationships, etc. Men live shorter lives, suffer more from stress-related illnesses, are isolated, commit suicide more often--on and on and on. What I precisely object to is the idea that 'men' set this whole thing up for their own benefit. It's a gross simplification of massive historical and technological trends.
After all, for every oppressive man out there, there was a mother who raised him and a wife who supported him! We need to realize that it was (and is) a bad system that didn't work for anyone--not something men 'did' to women.
Looking back, if I had to choose between living longer and having better relationships with my kids or voting, chewing cigars, and 'being boss', I'd choose the oppression of the kitchen and diapers over the oppression of the coal mine or the boardroom. Any day.
Now, none of this takes away from the fact that male dominance resulted in, and continues to result in, some horrendous crimes against women. It's merely to say it's not as simple as saying 'men built that system' or 'men did that'. As long as we think that way we still really think that what men had was a 'good' thing and that the ultimate goal is for us all to be macho oppressors! A corporate lawyer can be a fierce and nasty thing. If it's wearing a skirt or a suit makes little difference to me: the issue is the system, not who happens to be running it.
I wondered if and when I'd reach the breaking point in this little dialogue - and now I know.
It's called "feminism" because men had basic human rights and women had none. Period.
Yes, it was gender-specific - and it was because men were the oppressors. It's historical fact, not a matter of perspective. Yes, men were locked into gender stereotypes ... but that's a far cry from social, legal and governmental systems that don't recognize you as a "person" at all. Canadian women weren't recognized as persons under the law until the 1920s, when five courageous Alberta women fought the courts and won the right to be so designated.
They couldn't vote. Their husbands could - and did - beat them (to which they had no recourse - that was considered a husband's 'responsibility'). They were precluded from testifying in court if married - their husbands were to speak for them. They weren't allowed to pursue most venues of post-secondary education. There weren't 'people' at all.
Suffragettes were not looking for "perks", they were looking to be treated like human beings ...THAT'S what the first wave of feminism brought us.
Comparing that to modern-day gender-bias against men is abidingly offensive to those of us who value the contribution made by - and the brutal repercussions suffered by - those women and others like them.
Yes, I support men's rights - and will fight for them with the same vehemence and vigour I bring to supporting women's rights - but pretending the history that created the word "feminism" didn't happen and that the word is sexist ... dismissing the suffering of generations of women who were treated as chattel; as subhuman ... pretending men were likewise oppressed ...
I never much liked the word 'feminism', though I can understand where it comes from. The simple version of feminism--that women wanted the perks that men had hitherto kept to themselves--always seemed flawed to me in that women were asking for the tools of there erstwhile oppressors!
Meet the new boss....
What did first wave feminism get us? Men AND women out in the work world, duking it out for the questionable gains of money and social status. Meanwhile, more and more kids being raised in daycare, boys and girls alike.
When I look back to my father's and grandfather's generations, I don't see men as the big 'winners' in an opressive system: I see men who were overworked and emotionally extranged from their families, men who died younger and suffered, in their own way, as women did under their particular yokes of kitchen and babies. What was clearly 'wrong' wasn't men--but the whole unbalanced system.
I hope we're learning something together: that, as you say, equality is the goal and that, as equals, we should all take a hard look at the values our society has been practicing for hundreds of years now--values that have brought a fair amount of pain to both men and women, boys and girls...equally.
If you are serious about equality, you could start by dropping the word, "Feminist" as by it`s very nature this title leans only to the female, a more fitting title would involve the word "Equality"
As per women not being able to vote years ago, you have failed to mention that at the same time most men also could not vote, lets have the full truth !!!
Those women back there only petitioned for the female vote, where is the equality in that ?
What you're describing - and yes, gender bias is rife - is anti-feminist. Feminists don't mistreat men - female bigots do. Just as male bigots so often mistreat women. Neither group's behaviour justifies that of the other.
I make no apology for seeking equality.
Facts, figures and studies don't have to be doctored to indicate women were ALL 'maltreated' (sic), sir - we weren't even allowed to vote before suffrage.
My facts on DV : "In 92% of all domestic violence incidents, crimes are committed by men against women." Source: "Violence Against Women", Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, January, 1994.
I wonder, sir, what you feel you're accomplishing by answering an earnest plea for the support of all human rights with such thinly-veiled rage.
When it comes to gender polarization, are you part of the solution ... or part of the problem?
A pretty predictable bunch of winners this time around. I was glad to see Jeff Bridges win for best actor--he's a real actor as opposed to a mere star. I like stars and all, but am glad to see when recognition goes to someone like Bridges.--ed.
I would like to thank Mr. Stuart Trew for responding to my column.
For those of you who do not know, Mr. Trew is the Trade Campaigner for the Council of Canadians –a seemingly rabid, anti-American group that appears to have fought every major trade agreement that Canada has agreed to since the group’s inception. They believe that the WTO is an extension of U.S. foreign policy and that any country that questions it's basic precepts is suspect in other ways, and they use seemingly paranoid propaganda like “There is some pressure for us to return to our nationalist "roots" and launch a campaign to stop the threat of the Americanization of Canada and defend the sovereignty of our country before it is too late.”, in an attempt to mobilize Canadians against international trade agreements and more specifically Trade agreements with the US.
I will admit that I agree with Mr. Trew that countries have and need to develop innovative ideas to combat the global recession and to kick start growth, however protectionist “Buy American” and “Buy Canadian” provisions, like the NDP tried to introduce, are not the answers.
And I am amazed that the Trade Campaigner for the Council of Canadians doesn’t appear to understand basic economics.
He doesn’t believe that “Buy American” and “Buy Canadian” provisions are protectionist, and in fact calls them “creative responses to the global recession”, but in the context of economics it refers to policies or doctrines which protect businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating or preventing trade with foreign nations, through a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign participation in native markets and companies.
An excellent example of this would be IPEX, a Toronto based pipe company, IPEX gained notoriety after the introduction of Buy American rules for having its pipe fittings pulled out of the ground in California because they had a "Made in Canada" designation on them.
Since the end of World War II, it has been the stated policy of most First World countries to eliminate protectionism through free trade policies enforced by international treaties and organizations such as the World Trade Organization. Certain policies of First World governments have been criticized as protectionist, however, such as "Buy American" provisions in economic recovery packages in the United States.
Most mainstream economists, including Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, believe remaining un-protectionist is necessary, yet not sufficient. It is vital to intensify the process of trade facilitation and removal of the persistent non-tariff border barriers to trade. Discriminatory procurement actions such as the “Buy American” clause included in stimulus packages are clearly not right since they run the risk of encouraging retaliation and severely constrain supply chains that use imported inputs.
The spin that Mr. Trew has put on this agreement is rather misleading by saying “for little or no gain in terms of secure new contracts in the U.S. for Canadian firms”, of course it isn’t secure, and they were never intended to be, just as they are not secure in Canada for US firms. However, as I stated in my original column “It will provide companies in both countries with permanent access to projects at the sub-federal level, which means they can bid and work on public works projects at the provincial, state, and municipal levels.”, they can BID ON, they are not automatically given contracts just because they applied for them. This is how business is run; the contract is awarded to the best bid (not necessarily the lowest, but the best) and again, I am surprised that the Trade Campaigner for the Council of Canadians doesn’t seem to know this. This is what is meant by competition (Merriam-Webster defines competition in business as "the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms") The greater selection typically causes lower prices for the products or services, compared to what the price would be if there was no competition (monopoly) or little competition (oligopoly) and the only fear Mr. Trew and Mr. Atamanenko should have is if they do not believe that Canadian companies are able to compete at an international level.
Mr Trew’s accusation that I need to “read up on these things before attacking one of the few critical articles we’ve seen in print”, should really make him ponder why there are so few critical articles. Maybe it really is good for the Canadian economy, and that its only ideologues that will seek out any issue with the agreement to promote their ideologies.
Avatar was an amazing achievement on a technical level, but as a movie it's fairly so-so. But who knows--Hollywood politics are a big part of the Oscars.--ed
Castlegar Source
Castlegar Source
Contributor
Alex Atamanenko
Contributor
Kyra, while you may think that I missed your point, I think it may be the other way around.
I started off by saying that I appreciated the article, and the main point. I really did like the article over all. I recognized that you were speaking in favour of universal rights.
But my point is that the pervasiveness of incorrect statistics makes it impossible to move ahead. While you may support universal rights, I couldn't help but get the impression that you thought men were more violent. You were the first person who derailed your own argument by posting statistics about the gender differences in an article that would have been much stronger without even mentioning statistics. And then you used it to argue that men need better access to mental care facilities (while that may be true, it is unrelated to the domestic violence issue). Men need equal access to mental health care, and that can be clearly understood through basic human rights without making the suggestion that it is because men are more mentally unstable as evidenced by domestic violence statistics.
The last statistic I saw, in a video with Erin Pizzey, was 1 male death for each 2 female deaths due to Domestic Violence. While that is more, I would say it is certainly pretty close.
And I hope you take this opportunity to re-read the last section of my earlier reply, because I think you may have skipped over it. I specifically said that it was not an issue of who is the baddest guy. I definitely made it clear that I did not view any skewed statistics as being "women being worse than men" or vice versa.
Like I originally said - I liked the article. I appreciated your efforts.
Well, Kyra, I guess you weren't aware of how I had already praised you for this article on two other forums (here and here). It was from there that some of the men's rights advocates have come and commented here. You'll find that some of them are deeply suspicious (or contemptuous) of feminists, and for them, it seems to me that the driving force behind that attitude is feminist indifference to male pain.
In my opinion, you have shown courage merely for writing this column. What impressed me more than anything, however, was that you didn't just advocate for equal rights for men, but you challenged people who believe in women's rights to actually lobby for men's rights! That is what got my attention. I, for one, would like to see the following policy changes which would improve everyone's lives:
- States that prohibit couples counseling when one of the partners has been found guilty of domestic violence are effectively perpetuating a vicious cycle. If only the man is challenged on his violence, this will merely embolden the woman if she too is violent. There's a spiritual, personal and psychological dynamic that is not being addressed between two people who should love each other. Current policy seeks only to separate the parties from each other; as far as healing the relationship, they go so far as to actively impede that. If you want to lobby for men's rights, then please speak out against laws that bar troubled and violent couples from receiving counseling together as a couple.
- If men incur injury from female violence less frequently than women incur injury from male violence, does that negate the non-injurious pain that men feel when women hit, slap, punch or kick them with impunity? No sympathetic woman should hear about this and think to herself, "Suck it up, be a man." It hurts! You can't just let things escalate until there's a murder, and then claim, "See? Women have it worse across the board; all this time, the male perpetrators were using violence instrumentally." If we want to combat domestic violence, then we must challenge violent women with equal vigor. They wouldn't be perpetrating if they were the victims of instrumental patriarchal terrorism; they would be too afraid, wouldn't they? Half of all domestic violence is reciprocal, and of this reciprocal violence women perpetrate more frequently, according to a 2007 study by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (click here to read it) as published in the American Journal of Public Health. Of the half that was non-reciprocal (i.e. battering/instrumental violence), 70% of the perpetrators were female. And yet despite this, when a woman beats a man there is this attitude that because he is less likely than her to be injured, his pain is inconsequential. If you want to lobby for a change, then speak out in favor of more services for male victims -- and public acknowledgment of their plight.
There are many other areas that I wish women would advocate on behalf of men, too... Child custody is one (and your article covered that; thank you!) but also child support. In the U.S., there are certain states that will require a man to pay child support for a child that the government knows is not his (even despite a paternity test), merely because the child was born to the man's wife while the couple was still married. Pennsylvania is one such state. There are men there who are paying child support to the mother, who has reunited with the biological father and they are living together, receiving child support from a duped ex-husband. Lobby on things like that. Mandatory DNA testing at birth would eliminate all paternity fraud; please lobby on that too.
If I seem like I'm coming on a little strong, it's only because for men there is a whole iceberg of unmentionable pain and injustice just underneath the surface which men's advocates are all too aware exists. When some feminists browbeat men about the thousands of years of patriarchal oppression, it tends to have a smothering effect on any acknowledgment of the pain that men feel too. Please use such rhetoric (if you use it) with more precision and greater care. If you ever find yourself feeling like high-fiving a fellow-sister after slamming the patriarchy in print, it's at that moment that you should look inward and ask yourself if you have forgotten anyone.
You quoted a figure from a 1994 crime report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Crime reports do not indicate the prevalence of domestic violence, because they are not based on representative samples. The samples are only taken from a subset of people who call the police and report a crime, which is not reflective of the perpetrating or victimized population as a whole. Therefore, crime reports are not generalizable to the public at large; you can't rely on such reports and accurately say that X percent of domestic violence is committed by a particular sex.
Another flaw with crime reports is that they are not collected reliably. How much faith would you put in a taste test for Coke vs. Pepsi if the outcome of your answers to the test was a possible arrest and eviction from your home? Imagine one of these companies claiming that 92 percent of taste test surveys indicate a preference for one product over the other, under those conditions. People who are visited by police officers modify their answers to the officers' questions in order to effect the outcome that they're seeking. If they're trying to cause an arrest, then they'll say what they think is necessary to get the officer to make an arrest, whether it is accurate or not. Who determines what is accurate anyway? An accuser? A prosecutor? A jury? Crime reports reveal only who has been accused, arrested, charged and convicted, not necessarily who has actually perpetrated.
There is a body of hundreds of scientifically conducted studies which indicates gender parity in domestic violence perpetration. These studies are based on survey data rather than crime reports, and that's why the data are more reliable; the perpetrators and victims have far less incentive to lie, because they have nothing to gain by their answers. Turns out that the perpetrators freely admit their perpetration in those conditions (free of the possibility of arrest), and the results indicate that female perpetration meets or exceeds male perpetration in frequency (if not potency). The female perpetrators admit to it themselves, under non-coercive conditions!
If you have unreliable data, then the conclusions of causation that you make will be invalid. If you say that 92% of perpetrators are male, then you might infer from that figure that by challenging males and addressing male behavior you'll somehow reduce the rate of domestic violence. The claim of causation is flawed in this case, because you're assuming that the problem is solely or primarily with males, and therefore the solution solely or primarily with males, even though the 92% figure is based on unreliable data.
If you pit the reliability of crime reports against the scientific rigors of published research, I'd take the published research every time because it is more credible. A researcher's entire career is on the line when he or she publishes a study using unreliable data collection methods and invalid conclusions about causation or correlation. It's brutal when a scientist publishes a boneheaded error about their data; they lose funding, prestige, opportunities, and credibility.
Click here to see a list of 47 studies, published in respectable scholarly journals, and these studies collectively have a sample of more than 247,000 people -- spanning 28 years. Moreover, all of these particular studies are national surveys or representative sample studies. Therefore, the claims emerging from these studies are generalizable to a larger population. And all of them (except one -- a crime report) indicate either gender parity in domestic violence perpetration, or higher levels of female perpetration.
And those are just national and representative samples. There are actually more than 270 published works (full list here) with an aggregate sample size now exceeding 365,000 including national and representative samples, international samples, case studies and reviews which date from the current time (2009 to be specific) all the way back to 1978. And the data conclusively show that there is gender parity in domestic violence perpetration.
If you want to attack the reliability or validity of these studies, then why not publish your attack in the same journals (or the same types of journals) in which the studies were published? In that case, your critique would have to use scientific criteria rather than ideology alone. A scientifically-constructed (and published) critique is surely the harder route; it's much easier to simply claim on a blog that 92 percent of DV perpetrators are male, and rely on unreliable crime reports to confirm your preconceived hypothesis. But handling things this way sure does undermine your credibility, compared to that of published experts in the field of domestic violence. In that field, there is consensus based on hard data.
Not only is there consensus on gender parity of DV in the academic realm, but you may be surprised to know that the founder of the domestic violence shelter movement -- Erin Pizzey -- has aligned with this consensus (and has maintained since the early 1970s that many of the women who arrived at her refuges were themselves equally or more violent than the men who they had left). If even the founder of an international movement of domestic violence shelters confirms the reality of gender parity in domestic violence perpetration -- and she has worked directly with victims for decades -- then shouldn't you acknowledge the same?
I appreciated the first few paragraphs of the article, and am glad that many people are starting to recognize the need for equality. But I don't think this can happen when we continue to lie to ourselves and to believe lies told to us.
You said, "Men are statistically far more violent than women (90 per cent of all physical domestic abuse is perpetrated by men)".
Not only is this statistic wrong, it is grossly wrong.
Here is a link to an academic study in Australia: http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13y.htm
In the statistical analysis, men are shown as the victims of domestic violence slightly more often than women, but not a statistically significant amount to make the claim that it is anything other than equal between the genders.
Here is a link to an article in PsychiatryOnline that references a study by the Centre for Disease Control in the US:
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full?eaf
In it, they make it clear that approximately 50% of all domestic violence is reciprocal - both partners are violent. Of the remaining 50% of domestic violence, 70% is perpetrated by women - men are the victims.
Here is another link to an article on the battered men website that references a National Violence Against Women study:
http://www.batteredmen.com/suprmyth.htm
In this one, it is clearly shown that men are not only the victims of domestic violence more, but that they are severely harmed by knives, guns or other objects more. The point being that the mentality that views men as aggressors in domestic violence situations relies on the view that men are larger, stronger and more capable. It completely ignores the fact that humans are the most successful species on Earth because of our ability to use tools - and aggressors, regardless of gender, have this ability too.
And here is one last link:
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=a41532d6-d4df-46a2-a78...
This one is an article about Erin Pizzey, the woman who started domestic violence shelters. In it, it discusses how she is now ostracized by the community for her views that both genders are equally capable of violence, and for her desire to offer services to both genders.
In another video interview of Erin Pizzey, I recall her saying that Domestic Violence against women is a $1 billion/year industry now. There is a lot of investment to ensure that people continue to believe that women are the victims and men are the aggressors. The issue isn't that men don't have access to mental facilities, it is that both genders are equally violent (regardless of the statistics I quoted, I am not going to suggest that women are more violent - more/less are not words that we should use in this situation).
Editor
Kyra and Adrian, thanks for the great interchange of ideas. You both make some very good points.
Kyra, the "bra burning" thing was made up by a hostile media and has been accepted into our urban mythology as fact. Just so you know.
Adrian, men might also have been systemic victims as you express; but they were (and sometimes still are) also individual perpetrators. I am of the generation of the second wave of feminism, once we had the vote thanks to a few generations earlier. It is hard for younger folks to believe the below, but in my lifetime, my friends and I fought for these among many other things:
* For women to be able to be FM radio announcers and news anchors. When I was in college, it was thought that audiences would not want to listen to a woman because women were not seen as authoritative.
* For women to be able to run in the Boston and Olympic and other marathons. Women were forbidden, perhaps because race organizers thought if women did, our "lady innards" would fall out. Or whatever.
* For women to be able to work in "non-traditional" jobs such as plumbers, electricians, parks maintenance workers, miners, carpenters, because they made a LOT more money than in traditional "women's jobs." (Which were: secretary, teacher, nurse, librarian, and stay at home mom. That was pretty much it. Explains why a lot of brilliant women in the 1950's sucked down Valium and/or stuck their heads in their gas ovens.) Even when women could legally hold "men's" jobs, the individual men in those jobs made it absolute hell for the women pioneers in them. I could go on, but briefly it ranged from outright verbal and/or sexual harassment; to withholding information necessary to be successful that they shared with other men; to vandalizing lockers and vehicles; to stealing the women's tools; to spreading lies about the honesty or work ethics of their female coworkers; to violence against them. This is where it got very personal indeed.
Adrian, if women got mad, maybe if you put yourself in those shoes for a minute you might see why. It happened (and still happens in some places) and there is no sense in denying it. Denying it makes those of us who lived through it and gave our life's blood trying to change it for ourselves and the generations to follow pretty PO'd!
* For girls and young women to have the same opportunities as boys in school-sponsored sports. In my youth, girls were only allowed to play half-court basketball. Girls sports were non-existent or unfunded and if coached at all, they were coached by phys ed teacher who volunteered their time. Parents drove my high school girls' basketball team in their PE uniforms to local schools for games, as there was no money for buses, much less anything else. Even though the boys lost every game that season and the girls won every one, the girls had to fight to get ANY indoor gym practice time and practiced on the asphalt courts in the rain, while the boys got uniforms, transportation, lodging, cheerleaders, pep squad, coverage in the school paper, university scholarships... the same went for any other girls' sports. (Fortunately, after all these years of fighting for equal opportunity, you can see some of the results of change by the performance of Canadian women in the recent Winter Olympics!)
I just spent the weekend visiting with a friend who is only one generation ahead of me. Her passion at university was geology, and she pursued that until she was told that while she could major in it, women students could not go to field camp (required for graduation). That also meant she could not actually get a job as a geologist. So she switched her major to one of the only professions open to her as a woman, library science, became a school librarian, and spent summers in the field assisting her geologist husband - for no pay and no recognition.
I say all this to point out that the need for feminism is not some relic of ancient history: it happened within the lifetimes of people you know. Things are so much better now than they were thirty years ago and as recently as twenty years ago. Feminism has had positive outcomes not just for women but also for men - it is more accepted for men to be softer, to show emotion, to be more involved with their children, to even stay home and be the primary caretaker. Young men today have always lived in a world where there were women generals, astronauts, CEOs, mountain climbers, news anchors, editors, doctors, carpenters, electricians, marathoners, laborers, and hockey players - as well as stay at home moms... and there have been male nurses, librarians, personal assistants, and elementary school teachers, which not too long ago was very rare. So there is not as much energy on the whole thing with younger guys. But it has not always been so.
Make no mistake: there are still pockets of resistance, and there is still much work to do to level the playing field. There are those who will turn back the clock if they can get away with it. The great American Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Complacency from men or women is dangerous. Guys, if you like a little more freedom in expressing who you are as a human being, be alert as to those who would stuff you back in to some kind of masculine jello-mold. And women, if you like having choices about your life's work and direction... pay attention.
Thanks for considering these points of view.
Here's one of my favorite quotes that pretty much sums it up:
“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”
- Rebecca West (English Writer, 1892-1983)
Once more, into the breach...My suggestion of 'masculinism' was ironic--an alternate misnomer. No serious intent there! When I refer to 'traditional feminine virtues' I don't mean to imply that all women can or should have them, but that our common cultural life has been defined too often by traditional male warrior traits that don't fit so well into the modern world! In other words, we ARE on the same page! Or are we....?
Stepping away from traditional qualities ... which are no more than stereotypes, when you get right down to it ... is the whole point.
Respectfully,
Kyra Hoggan
Editor
If 'feminism', in practise, had meant bringing traditional feminine virtues like empathy and nurturing to the forefront of society, I'd be all for the term. As it worked out, though, the term is largely associated with women gaining 'male' rights. So why not call it 'masculinism' or something similar? The world, really, needs more feminine input in its politics and economy--not twice as many 'men' out there scraping around for a buck. Right now the world is more 'masculine' (in terms of aggression, competition, lack of empathy, etc) than it's ever been, and we're all paying the price.
Gulp. Well, I'll take this on, I guess. Yes, I challenge you to show any evidence that the old patriarchal system produced any real benefits for men in terms of well-being, health, relationships, etc. Men live shorter lives, suffer more from stress-related illnesses, are isolated, commit suicide more often--on and on and on. What I precisely object to is the idea that 'men' set this whole thing up for their own benefit. It's a gross simplification of massive historical and technological trends.
After all, for every oppressive man out there, there was a mother who raised him and a wife who supported him! We need to realize that it was (and is) a bad system that didn't work for anyone--not something men 'did' to women.
Looking back, if I had to choose between living longer and having better relationships with my kids or voting, chewing cigars, and 'being boss', I'd choose the oppression of the kitchen and diapers over the oppression of the coal mine or the boardroom. Any day.
Now, none of this takes away from the fact that male dominance resulted in, and continues to result in, some horrendous crimes against women. It's merely to say it's not as simple as saying 'men built that system' or 'men did that'. As long as we think that way we still really think that what men had was a 'good' thing and that the ultimate goal is for us all to be macho oppressors! A corporate lawyer can be a fierce and nasty thing. If it's wearing a skirt or a suit makes little difference to me: the issue is the system, not who happens to be running it.
I wondered if and when I'd reach the breaking point in this little dialogue - and now I know.
It's called "feminism" because men had basic human rights and women had none. Period.
Yes, it was gender-specific - and it was because men were the oppressors. It's historical fact, not a matter of perspective. Yes, men were locked into gender stereotypes ... but that's a far cry from social, legal and governmental systems that don't recognize you as a "person" at all. Canadian women weren't recognized as persons under the law until the 1920s, when five courageous Alberta women fought the courts and won the right to be so designated.
They couldn't vote. Their husbands could - and did - beat them (to which they had no recourse - that was considered a husband's 'responsibility'). They were precluded from testifying in court if married - their husbands were to speak for them. They weren't allowed to pursue most venues of post-secondary education. There weren't 'people' at all.
Suffragettes were not looking for "perks", they were looking to be treated like human beings ...THAT'S what the first wave of feminism brought us.
Comparing that to modern-day gender-bias against men is abidingly offensive to those of us who value the contribution made by - and the brutal repercussions suffered by - those women and others like them.
Yes, I support men's rights - and will fight for them with the same vehemence and vigour I bring to supporting women's rights - but pretending the history that created the word "feminism" didn't happen and that the word is sexist ... dismissing the suffering of generations of women who were treated as chattel; as subhuman ... pretending men were likewise oppressed ...
You've got to be kidding me.
Respectfully,
Kyra Hoggan
Editor
I never much liked the word 'feminism', though I can understand where it comes from. The simple version of feminism--that women wanted the perks that men had hitherto kept to themselves--always seemed flawed to me in that women were asking for the tools of there erstwhile oppressors!
Meet the new boss....
What did first wave feminism get us? Men AND women out in the work world, duking it out for the questionable gains of money and social status. Meanwhile, more and more kids being raised in daycare, boys and girls alike.
When I look back to my father's and grandfather's generations, I don't see men as the big 'winners' in an opressive system: I see men who were overworked and emotionally extranged from their families, men who died younger and suffered, in their own way, as women did under their particular yokes of kitchen and babies. What was clearly 'wrong' wasn't men--but the whole unbalanced system.
I hope we're learning something together: that, as you say, equality is the goal and that, as equals, we should all take a hard look at the values our society has been practicing for hundreds of years now--values that have brought a fair amount of pain to both men and women, boys and girls...equally.
If you are serious about equality, you could start by dropping the word, "Feminist" as by it`s very nature this title leans only to the female, a more fitting title would involve the word "Equality"
As per women not being able to vote years ago, you have failed to mention that at the same time most men also could not vote, lets have the full truth !!!
Those women back there only petitioned for the female vote, where is the equality in that ?
RobYork.
What you're describing - and yes, gender bias is rife - is anti-feminist. Feminists don't mistreat men - female bigots do. Just as male bigots so often mistreat women. Neither group's behaviour justifies that of the other.
I make no apology for seeking equality.
Facts, figures and studies don't have to be doctored to indicate women were ALL 'maltreated' (sic), sir - we weren't even allowed to vote before suffrage.
My facts on DV : "In 92% of all domestic violence incidents, crimes are committed by men against women." Source: "Violence Against Women", Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, January, 1994.
I wonder, sir, what you feel you're accomplishing by answering an earnest plea for the support of all human rights with such thinly-veiled rage.
When it comes to gender polarization, are you part of the solution ... or part of the problem?
Respectfully,
Kyra Hoggan
Editor
Do I read that correctly ?
Feminists finally admitting to gender bias and maltreating ALL men ?
What next, an apology for doctoring all those facts, figures and studies ?
You need to check the facts on DV though, they are incorrect.
Your great. I love reading what you write very refeshing its to bad you are not here in GF anymore you are missed :(
Rob has been doing such a terrific job of opinion-editorial pieces (yes, that's what OP/ED stands for) that I got lazy ... but I'm back now.
Largely because no one listens to my opinion unless I lay it out in a column format :).
Thanks for the support - we mean it when we say this is YOUR paper, not ours.
About Castlegar; for Castlegar; by Castlegar.
And, of course, your news ...straight from The Source!
Respectfully,
Kyra Hoggan
Editor
<!--Session data-->Haven't seen one of these from you in awhile Kyra, but it was worth the wait.
I agree. I was disappointed in Sandra Bullock's win because I am a Helen Mirren fangirl, though.
A pretty predictable bunch of winners this time around. I was glad to see Jeff Bridges win for best actor--he's a real actor as opposed to a mere star. I like stars and all, but am glad to see when recognition goes to someone like Bridges.--ed.
Well, The Hurt Locker wins! Siding with my cynicism was a FAIL this time!
I would like to thank Mr. Stuart Trew for responding to my column.
For those of you who do not know, Mr. Trew is the Trade Campaigner for the Council of Canadians –a seemingly rabid, anti-American group that appears to have fought every major trade agreement that Canada has agreed to since the group’s inception. They believe that the WTO is an extension of U.S. foreign policy and that any country that questions it's basic precepts is suspect in other ways, and they use seemingly paranoid propaganda like “There is some pressure for us to return to our nationalist "roots" and launch a campaign to stop the threat of the Americanization of Canada and defend the sovereignty of our country before it is too late.”, in an attempt to mobilize Canadians against international trade agreements and more specifically Trade agreements with the US.
I will admit that I agree with Mr. Trew that countries have and need to develop innovative ideas to combat the global recession and to kick start growth, however protectionist “Buy American” and “Buy Canadian” provisions, like the NDP tried to introduce, are not the answers.
And I am amazed that the Trade Campaigner for the Council of Canadians doesn’t appear to understand basic economics.
He doesn’t believe that “Buy American” and “Buy Canadian” provisions are protectionist, and in fact calls them “creative responses to the global recession”, but in the context of economics it refers to policies or doctrines which protect businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating or preventing trade with foreign nations, through a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign participation in native markets and companies.
An excellent example of this would be IPEX, a Toronto based pipe company, IPEX gained notoriety after the introduction of Buy American rules for having its pipe fittings pulled out of the ground in California because they had a "Made in Canada" designation on them.
Since the end of World War II, it has been the stated policy of most First World countries to eliminate protectionism through free trade policies enforced by international treaties and organizations such as the World Trade Organization. Certain policies of First World governments have been criticized as protectionist, however, such as "Buy American" provisions in economic recovery packages in the United States.
Most mainstream economists, including Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, believe remaining un-protectionist is necessary, yet not sufficient. It is vital to intensify the process of trade facilitation and removal of the persistent non-tariff border barriers to trade. Discriminatory procurement actions such as the “Buy American” clause included in stimulus packages are clearly not right since they run the risk of encouraging retaliation and severely constrain supply chains that use imported inputs.
The spin that Mr. Trew has put on this agreement is rather misleading by saying “for little or no gain in terms of secure new contracts in the U.S. for Canadian firms”, of course it isn’t secure, and they were never intended to be, just as they are not secure in Canada for US firms. However, as I stated in my original column “It will provide companies in both countries with permanent access to projects at the sub-federal level, which means they can bid and work on public works projects at the provincial, state, and municipal levels.”, they can BID ON, they are not automatically given contracts just because they applied for them. This is how business is run; the contract is awarded to the best bid (not necessarily the lowest, but the best) and again, I am surprised that the Trade Campaigner for the Council of Canadians doesn’t seem to know this. This is what is meant by competition (Merriam-Webster defines competition in business as "the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms") The greater selection typically causes lower prices for the products or services, compared to what the price would be if there was no competition (monopoly) or little competition (oligopoly) and the only fear Mr. Trew and Mr. Atamanenko should have is if they do not believe that Canadian companies are able to compete at an international level.
Mr Trew’s accusation that I need to “read up on these things before attacking one of the few critical articles we’ve seen in print”, should really make him ponder why there are so few critical articles. Maybe it really is good for the Canadian economy, and that its only ideologues that will seek out any issue with the agreement to promote their ideologies.
Avatar was an amazing achievement on a technical level, but as a movie it's fairly so-so. But who knows--Hollywood politics are a big part of the Oscars.--ed