Peter MacKay: An Idiot Disguised as an Anti-Feminist.
Canadian politics. God. What an exciting place to be. We did have that Senate scandal. Oh yeah and that guy from the Prairies who tried to "re-open the debate on gay marriage" and Steve was like "no. Can someone get John Boy his BB gun, he's obviously getting bored and we need him kept out of trouble".
I'm not saying that we have bad or boring politics - I think our game is clean and orderly and generally pretty mature! I think some of the policy is worthy of dramatic discussion - like every time Steve tries to take away people's Charter rights. To me, that's scandal! But generally, insofar as the players are concerned, it's certainly not the scene of The West Wing.
SO, now, in that group of polite politicians, who are we gonna pick on? Writers everywhere would be out of work without a target so C'MON YOU GUYS who?!
And the winner is: Peter MacKay!
As a proud supporter of female rights, this Peter MacKay "scandal" has really been on my mind. In summary, and if I correctly understand, this is what happened.
MacKay (Minister of Justice) is at a Nova Scotia Bar Association function and gets asked why there aren't more female judges. MacKay allegedly says it's because not enough women apply because of their strong bond with their children. Women's rights activists like Arlene Huggins (president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers) were ticked off by these comments and MacKay was referred to as a "victim blamer" and was likened to characters off of television shows like Mad Men (which, by the way, I think is a stretch because Don Draper is handsome and Peter MacKay clearly didn't bag his wife by looks alone...but I digress).
This was after mothers and fathers day, which is relevant because MacKay ALSO wrote some e-mails that also ticked off some people. The e-mails have drawn headlines like this one: "Peter MacKay's emails to Staff: Moms change diapers; Dads form leaders". Seemingly the best quotes from these e-mails comes from the Moms e-mail: "By the time many of you have arrived at the office in the morning, you've already changed diapers, packed lunches, run after school buses, dropped kids off at daycare, taken care of an aging loved one and maybe even thought about dinner."
Apparently the Dads e-mail was to the effect of change the future, shape young minds, go team, fight, fight, and things of that nature.
On Thursday, MacKay's wife, Nazanin Afshin-Jam wrote an Open Letter to Leah McLaren, who had written an "Open Letter to Peter MacKay's Wife". The whole thing is masked in passive-aggression and the kind of drama not actually found on The Hill, and sort of resembles that time Sinead O'Connor tried to write an Open Letter to Miley Cyrus (who, for anyone who missed out, basically just replied with "oh please, I can't even see you from the top"). Anyway, Afshin-Jam wrote back defending her husband in language which was all of eloquent, expected and sufficiently boring to not warrant reproduction here. Suffice to say, comments about hearsay evidence, irony, and how MacKay does most of the heavy household cleaning make an appearance. For those of us who have been schooled in national politics from the sassy Olivia Pope, we are pretty certain Afshin-Jam wrote those letters with great encouragement from one or all of: her husband, her husband's boss, her husband.
(Side bar: one can imagine an Onion article entitled "MacKay's Wife Writes Open Letter Defending Husband After Much Bargaining; MacKay to Lose Man Cave and Change Diapers for Eternity"....but I digress.)
In any event, I've been following - somewhat bored and with a fair amount of eye-rolling - the story of when MacKay "victim blamed". I have some comments.
1. Can someone just clarify what the actual problem is with his comments other than the fact of them being true (and assuming we all hate truth)? Evidence has suggested for quite some time now that the reason why fewer women become politicians is because they don't self-select to run in elections. Most of the women who could potentially self-select for politics are in professions such as law, so I, personally, think it's likely accurate that the reason lots of women don't self-select to apply for judicial appointments is probably the same. NOW if there is actually a MacKay Scheme in which there are no actual applications and he's just selecting men all on his own...well, let's get talking.
2. I followed with great devastation, disgust and interest all the many and varied rapes that have happened in the last 24 months in which the raped was blamed for her own raper's conduct - slutty clothes, twitter feeds, flirty text messages, being born a girl. God, that was horrible. And, now, MacKay has "victim blamed" female lawyers for not being made judges? It's not my intent to too radically minimalize the issue, but did we just take a term that was developed to protect rape victims from being blamed for their own rape and extend its application to the extremely privileged class of lawyers who are sufficiently capable and competent of even applying for the judiciary? Did that just happen? Because, quite frankly, that is offensive.
I suggest, in no uncertain terms, that the extension of that term is, in and of itself, so much more offensive than Peter MacKay being a bit of a chump with chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome. The women who have not had their applications accepted for judicial appointments are not victims, their big dogs trying to play with other big dogs. The women who don't throw their hat in the ring, but who are sufficiently competent that they could, are not victims, they are big dogs who decided they didn't wanna do it. Maybe it's not because they have kids. Maybe it's because they have fear of failure. Maybe it's because they perceive they won't get it because they're women (thus have a fear of failure). Maybe it's because they have a nice cushy life and get to wear sick clothes at the office and close huge deals and they don't care to put their name forward. Whatever their reason, to mistake these women who either (a) don't get appointed, or (b) don't self-select for application, as victims using the same terminology that the raped are labeled with is mortifying. They're not victims, least of all in the sense the term "victim blame" has intended to convey.
I think it's time to put to rest this pseuedo-drama for the bored and just accept that MacKay is a chump who probably doesn't follow any sort of feminist or equalist movements. He's just a bit of a moron who's not good talking without a nice, plotted out script. I reference MacKay's attempt to discuss the new prostitution law, Bill C-36, when MacKay was so chaotically confusing it bordered on the impressive (see: Peter MacKay's prostitution law news conference sowed confusion).
MacKay's great mortal flaw is not that he hates women, it's that he's not much of an orator when he's all flabbergasted by a question. Now, if people want to rally together, stir up some drama and remove him from office for that reason, I'll fist pump with the best of 'em. When it comes to those fixated on his "anti-women" tendencies, though: may I suggest you start watching Scandal and The West Wing to satisfy your hyper dramatic political urges.
I'm not saying that we have bad or boring politics - I think our game is clean and orderly and generally pretty mature! I think some of the policy is worthy of dramatic discussion - like every time Steve tries to take away people's Charter rights. To me, that's scandal! But generally, insofar as the players are concerned, it's certainly not the scene of The West Wing.
SO, now, in that group of polite politicians, who are we gonna pick on? Writers everywhere would be out of work without a target so C'MON YOU GUYS who?!
And the winner is: Peter MacKay!
As a proud supporter of female rights, this Peter MacKay "scandal" has really been on my mind. In summary, and if I correctly understand, this is what happened.
MacKay (Minister of Justice) is at a Nova Scotia Bar Association function and gets asked why there aren't more female judges. MacKay allegedly says it's because not enough women apply because of their strong bond with their children. Women's rights activists like Arlene Huggins (president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers) were ticked off by these comments and MacKay was referred to as a "victim blamer" and was likened to characters off of television shows like Mad Men (which, by the way, I think is a stretch because Don Draper is handsome and Peter MacKay clearly didn't bag his wife by looks alone...but I digress).
This was after mothers and fathers day, which is relevant because MacKay ALSO wrote some e-mails that also ticked off some people. The e-mails have drawn headlines like this one: "Peter MacKay's emails to Staff: Moms change diapers; Dads form leaders". Seemingly the best quotes from these e-mails comes from the Moms e-mail: "By the time many of you have arrived at the office in the morning, you've already changed diapers, packed lunches, run after school buses, dropped kids off at daycare, taken care of an aging loved one and maybe even thought about dinner."
Apparently the Dads e-mail was to the effect of change the future, shape young minds, go team, fight, fight, and things of that nature.
On Thursday, MacKay's wife, Nazanin Afshin-Jam wrote an Open Letter to Leah McLaren, who had written an "Open Letter to Peter MacKay's Wife". The whole thing is masked in passive-aggression and the kind of drama not actually found on The Hill, and sort of resembles that time Sinead O'Connor tried to write an Open Letter to Miley Cyrus (who, for anyone who missed out, basically just replied with "oh please, I can't even see you from the top"). Anyway, Afshin-Jam wrote back defending her husband in language which was all of eloquent, expected and sufficiently boring to not warrant reproduction here. Suffice to say, comments about hearsay evidence, irony, and how MacKay does most of the heavy household cleaning make an appearance. For those of us who have been schooled in national politics from the sassy Olivia Pope, we are pretty certain Afshin-Jam wrote those letters with great encouragement from one or all of: her husband, her husband's boss, her husband.
(Side bar: one can imagine an Onion article entitled "MacKay's Wife Writes Open Letter Defending Husband After Much Bargaining; MacKay to Lose Man Cave and Change Diapers for Eternity"....but I digress.)
In any event, I've been following - somewhat bored and with a fair amount of eye-rolling - the story of when MacKay "victim blamed". I have some comments.
1. Can someone just clarify what the actual problem is with his comments other than the fact of them being true (and assuming we all hate truth)? Evidence has suggested for quite some time now that the reason why fewer women become politicians is because they don't self-select to run in elections. Most of the women who could potentially self-select for politics are in professions such as law, so I, personally, think it's likely accurate that the reason lots of women don't self-select to apply for judicial appointments is probably the same. NOW if there is actually a MacKay Scheme in which there are no actual applications and he's just selecting men all on his own...well, let's get talking.
2. I followed with great devastation, disgust and interest all the many and varied rapes that have happened in the last 24 months in which the raped was blamed for her own raper's conduct - slutty clothes, twitter feeds, flirty text messages, being born a girl. God, that was horrible. And, now, MacKay has "victim blamed" female lawyers for not being made judges? It's not my intent to too radically minimalize the issue, but did we just take a term that was developed to protect rape victims from being blamed for their own rape and extend its application to the extremely privileged class of lawyers who are sufficiently capable and competent of even applying for the judiciary? Did that just happen? Because, quite frankly, that is offensive.
I suggest, in no uncertain terms, that the extension of that term is, in and of itself, so much more offensive than Peter MacKay being a bit of a chump with chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome. The women who have not had their applications accepted for judicial appointments are not victims, their big dogs trying to play with other big dogs. The women who don't throw their hat in the ring, but who are sufficiently competent that they could, are not victims, they are big dogs who decided they didn't wanna do it. Maybe it's not because they have kids. Maybe it's because they have fear of failure. Maybe it's because they perceive they won't get it because they're women (thus have a fear of failure). Maybe it's because they have a nice cushy life and get to wear sick clothes at the office and close huge deals and they don't care to put their name forward. Whatever their reason, to mistake these women who either (a) don't get appointed, or (b) don't self-select for application, as victims using the same terminology that the raped are labeled with is mortifying. They're not victims, least of all in the sense the term "victim blame" has intended to convey.
I think it's time to put to rest this pseuedo-drama for the bored and just accept that MacKay is a chump who probably doesn't follow any sort of feminist or equalist movements. He's just a bit of a moron who's not good talking without a nice, plotted out script. I reference MacKay's attempt to discuss the new prostitution law, Bill C-36, when MacKay was so chaotically confusing it bordered on the impressive (see: Peter MacKay's prostitution law news conference sowed confusion).
MacKay's great mortal flaw is not that he hates women, it's that he's not much of an orator when he's all flabbergasted by a question. Now, if people want to rally together, stir up some drama and remove him from office for that reason, I'll fist pump with the best of 'em. When it comes to those fixated on his "anti-women" tendencies, though: may I suggest you start watching Scandal and The West Wing to satisfy your hyper dramatic political urges.
Labels: Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Parliament, Peter MacKay, victim blaming
posted by emily at 2:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home