Where do I begin???

I was out for a walk with the kids at the local conservation area, and I saw a car parked with this bumper sticker. It is wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin...


In case you cannot read it, it says "my other ride is a hooker"

After the walk, I mentioned the bumper sticker to my brother's friend, who responded something along the lines of both are products and services. I can understand how sex work is a service, but I do not like how this bumper sticker takes that and turns women into products. Vehicles are often referred to as she, given women's names, and used as a status symbol for men, much like an attractive girlfriend.

I'm not going to really go into detail about this here, but I feel like I should mention that I am not opposed to sex work in theory as I believe there could be a place for it if it is what someone wants to do, however, I do not see how it can be empowering to be viewed in the same way as a car. This type of product exists because we live in a culture where women are constantly being objectified and judged for their willingness to please men, visually and physically.

I do not find this sticker humorous at all, I find it very offensive... I also think the fact that this type of message can be attached to a car is evidence of just how accepted it has become to objectify women. It reminds me of the decals and mudflaps that show the outline of a nude woman with cartoon-like curves.

I have yet to see a man objectified in this way on a vehicle.

Site Makeover...

I've had a few comments that the light writing on dark background is hard to read for some people, so I decided to try something else to see if it would be any easier... I'm not entirely happy with the new look yet, so it may change one more time in the next few days... Don't worry, it won't get like facebook changing every few weeks.

Let me know if you have any comments regarding the new or old looks...

OSAP and the Toronto Star

The Toronto Star ran an interesting article about how it is difficult for students to eat on the budget they are given, which is no surprise, considering all the jokes within pop culture about surviving on Kraft Dinner and frozen pizza. The purpose appeared to be to raise awareness that OSAP (student loan) rates are very low, however many people were unsympathetic, and wrote letters to the Star about how students do not deserve more money and they need to either figure out how to live on that income, or get a job. I am not going to go into too much detail about them, but check the links if you would like to see the stories. I wrote a letter to the Star about it, and I am copying it here, so it gets read whether or not it is published...

I am a student and a single mother with two children and I would like to discuss my experiences with OSAP. One writer said that OSAP's allowance does not go towards housing, but this is not true. If you are a student who lives with your parents, you generally do not qualify for OSAP. People on OSAP do have to pay for housing, tuition, and books, which leaves students with $6,500 per year, at best, to pay for rent and food.

When I left Ontario Works to go back to school, I had about $50 a month more to live on, so I assumed it would be easy. Then I realized that I lost most of my health and discretionary benefits that I received with Ontario Works, as well as my special diet allowance (my son is allergic to wheat and dairy, and is quite expensive to feed). I have also had to pay for childcare out of my own pocket for two required courses that are only offered in the evening as I could not get a licensed childcare space after 5:30. Ontario Works would have paid extra for my son's allergy and asthma medication, my daughter's glasses, and evening childcare; OSAP did not.

I am offended by the comment that one particular reader is "astounded that intelligent students struggle to feed themselves on $7.50 per day." Unexpected expenses come up all the time, especially if you have children. For example, my daughter just brought home her school and daycare running shoes as she has outgrown them. If the local second hand clothing store is not currently carrying her size, I will have to spend money allotted to several days worth of food on shoes.

Also, the foods that I can afford on what is left of that $7 per day may not be very nutritional. With a few extra dollars I would be able to get whole grain (and gluten-free) wheat products, high protein foods, and a rich assortment of fruits and vegetables that my children's bodies and brains need in order to grow to their fullest potential.

The universities themselves do not make things any easier either, with meals costing a minimum of $8 for a small sandwich or $6 for a slice of pizza with a beverage at my school and water in a vending machine costing $1.75. I have to be sure to come prepared every day because I often cannot afford to purchase water; coffee is actually cheaper at the on-campus Tim Hortons.

One reader said that "students should be grateful that they get money to begin with, and if it's not enough, get a part time job." OSAP is a loan; we do have to pay most, if not all, of this money back. When we, as a country, have some of the highest tuition rates in the developed world and women need to earn a post-secondary degree to earn the same income as men without a high school diploma, pardon me if I do not feel entirely grateful. As for the comment to get a job- I have two children and a part-time job as well as a full-time courseload including a thesis and a placement. For my teaching assistantship, I work only 5 hours a week and feel guilty about the time this takes away from my children. You can look at my schedule and tell me where to pen in that part-time job, as well as how to pay for the childcare expenses while I am at work, because they will not be covered by OSAP.

Food is not a luxury. We should not be expected to live on rice and plain pasta or cucumber sandwiches. Food and proper nutrition should be a right that all Canadians are entitled to.

Motherhood and Facebook status

A few friends of mine posted this in their facebook status this week:

"A real mother has to make sacrifices in her life to ensure her children are well taken care of and would make every sacrifice in the world for her children. She come first, always have, and always will! :-) Put this as your status if you're a devoted mother who will always put your children first...!"


It annoys me that, as a mother, I am expected to make "every sacrifice in the world" for my children, and yet, their father is not. Once a woman becomes a mother, that role is supposed to be her entire identity. I make sacrifices for my children, as I'm sure all parents do, but I do not make EVERY sacrifice for my children. One of the best lessons I can give my daughter is that women are whole people, not just mothers, and that we have interests and needs of our own too.

I am often annoyed that father's aren't expected to make such sacrifices, both in my personal life and in my academic research. My ex-husband can take the kids 2 out of every 14 days and it is considered normal, however, if I were to only take them every other weekend, I would be considered an absent mother by many people.

In my thesis research, I have found study after study showing how a woman's wage falls after having children, whereas a man's wage actually goes up when he has a family. Generally, it is women who stay home with their kids when they are sick or cannot apply for that promotion because they would have to work late or travel.

I would like to stop hearing about how we choose this role when we become mothers; that it is a personal problem that is based on individual family decisions. Domestic work and the paid work force are organized in a systematic way that makes it more profitable for men to be the primary wage earner. When we take a step back and look at the big picture, it is not about certain choices made by specific families; it is a systemic issue rooted in capitalism and the division of labour.

Mothers should not have to feel guilty for going to school, having a career, or pursuing their own interests. While children should be provided for and both parents are likely to have to make some sacrifices in order to ensure that their children have everything they need, I would love to see the day where the burden of childcare and domestic responsibility does not fall so heavily on women. I am not going to sacrifice myself, as a full human being, for my children, as that will only teach them to do the same.

"Man Hungry"

According to the author, who was on Canada AM this morning, "mad hungry means they [men] are very hungry, so you have to feed them to make them happy, then you have to teach them how to feed themselves"

As we all know, men are very hungry (but women and girls aren't), and they are only happy when fed (but girls can be happy while starving, somehow). And you have to teach men to cook, because they obviously don't know how, however, it is assumed that girls will know how, naturally, as opposed to having to teach them.

I, for one, came from the womb knowing how to cook. Anyone that has ever tasted my cooking will understand how outrageous that statement is- i have set a pot of water on fire.

monument to victims of "communism"

In my opinion, communism doesn't exist... I wish it did, but it doesn't. I've read that it probably existed in certain gatherer-hunter tribes and pre-colonial aboriginal communities, but I wasn't there, and I don't know if we could use our words for social, political or economic organization to describe something that happened in such a different context to the world that we understand. And yet the Canadian government plans to erect a monument to victims of communism. I want them to create one right next to it for victims of dragons- dragons are much scarier than communism, except possibly for the super-rich who could buy dragon slayers so long as they remain wealthy.

I have two problems with this monument. First, it encourages the dichotomy between capitalism and communism as the only possible ways to organize, with communism being represented by what I would call totalitarian states. This makes Marxist and socialist minded people appear to support Soviet style military control.

My second problem with it is that in demonizing 'communism' it further entrenches the belief that capitalism is the only option. What about a monument to victims of capitalism, as is suggested here. I would like to see a statue erected for all the people who died of hunger or froze to death while sleeping on the streets. All the people who had to struggle to make ends meet or go to bed hungry, whether they were working at low paid jobs or struggling to make a social assistance benefit last through the month. People who died, were injured, or became ill from performing dangerous work for very little money, while somebody else made huge profits. And yet, capitalism is the only socially just way of organizing, right?

Gendered wage gap in the media

Canadian newspapers have been taking an anti-feminist perspective regarding women and paid work. There was a recent study done by The Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action and the Canadian Labor Congress. I should start by saying that I have not yet had the opportunity to read through this 40 page report (I know, bad blogger... but I have a big test tomorrow and I am quite behind on my thesis, so I will have to finish reading it later).

Anyway, the report states that Canadian women earn 70 cents on a man's dollar. Canadian newspapers are accusing them of using incorrect data, claiming that the actual number was 84 cents on the dollar, hour per hour, because of women choosing part-time work. Women typically work fewer hours per week than men, and at different types of work. But this article blames women for making bad choices.

Women often work part-time for long periods of time, especially when they have young children, whereas men generally only work part-time as students under the age of 25. Women are believed to be naturally suited to childcare and household responsibilities, and by working part-time they can contribute to the household income while maintaining a close attachment to the home.

Another important aspect of part-time work is the discourse of chosen part-time work. Often, when a woman, especially a mother, chooses part-time over full-time work it is not because she would prefer to work fewer hours or because she does not need the additional pay that comes with full-time employment, but there are structural factors that make fewer hours the more practical choice for them at that time. For example, if a mother takes part-time work because she cannot access quality daycare services in her area, she may not have actually chosen part-time work; it was an external influence that shaped her decision. I think it is also important to note that rarely do such structural forces surrounding family life dictate whether a man/father works full-time, as it is women who are socialized to plan their lives around a family, while men are encouraged to plan their lives around a career.

Even when women work full-time, they are often not able to take on certain careers because of long hours, shift work, or a need to take time off when children are sick. It is generally not the father that stays home from work with a sick child- it is the mother. Of course, the article doesn't state any of the factors that might influence a woman's "choice" to do certain types of work. I have a possible career opportunity right now that would pay quite well, but requires a lot of traveling. If I were not the primary caretaker of two young children, I would apply for the job, and I believe I have a good chance at getting it. Because I cannot expect to find people to take care of them 4 to 10 days a month, I am instead going to graduate school in the hopes that I can find an equally good job that does not require traveling.

The article also talks about how women, who work proportionately more in the public sector, would then qualify for better pensions and maternity benefits than jobs which men predominate. If women have such great pensions, why is it that the poorest group, other than families headed by a single woman, is elderly widowed women? And parental leave can only be obtained if one has worked 900 hours in the previous year, which would be about 18 hours a week if I'm not mistaken, so, many part-timers wouldn't even qualify. And when they do qualify, it is based on a proportion of how much you made while working. This is usually 55%, but the article says many women get up to 93% of their income during maternity leave. This is misleading as 93% is the highest negotiated maternity leave by any public sector employer; it is not the norm.

The article ends by saying that we need to start by looking at the real numbers. I suggest they do the same.