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.

The Habit of Complaining in the Forty-Hour Work Week (Inspired by David Cain)

A few Fridays ago a small group of us were having Friday drinks at my office.  Edging towards that 5pm mark, people had already started loitering around the board room, stopping in offices and chatting as that Friday afternoon fatigue was rapidly setting in.  Finally, there it was - 5pm, the time of the angels of heaven above, the time when all good people everywhere are clinking glasses and celebrating!  Small life victories - like making it through the week, okay, so more like making it through the last two hours - are what we're going on here, people.

As we sat in that room on a really lovely, sunny friday, with an iceberg in view in the harbour, we chatted about how absolutely unfortunate it was that one girl couldn't drink because she had to go to a bridal shower about an hour outside of town.  (And, quite frankly, I wasn't even being facetious for the sake of a laugh - going to a bridal shower on friday instead of drinking is literally one of my personal nightmares.  More bridal showers should be wine showers.  Just bring enough wine for me and himself for a year so that we actually make it, after all they say the first year is the hardest...but I digress.)

I was reminded of this (and other) complaining - not just by the girl who had to go but by us on her behalf - after reading a fantastic article, "Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (The Real Reason for the Forty-Hour Workweek)".  The author postulates that the way the work week is designed forces us to have so little free time to ourselves to do the things we enjoy, that when we choose to do things - especially of a social nature - our hands are quite often forced to do things that are expensive (think lunch with your girlfriend, drinks with the crowd, dinner and a movie with your significant other) because our time is not only very limited, but also because our hours of freedom fall to times where greater capital is required for most social activities (think lunch, dinner, weekend brunch, evening drinking).  The more we spend to enjoy our time, the more we need to spend to enjoy our time.  Once you're in, can you ever really get out?

As I remembered the complainy banter we had going on at our Friday at five, I realized the forty-hour workweek has also resulted in these very complaints.  My colleague had finally made it to the weekend and instead of doing the bit of socialization or fun she wanted to do, she had to do something she was obligated to do.  Because her time is so short as it is, to attend said bridal (not wine) shower was cumbersome, irritating, frustrating, and, most definitely, bitch worthy.  

Of course, the things we don't want to do that we must do in our limited free time are not isolated to lame social activities like bridal (not wine) showers.  We also need to factor in horrible chores like grocery shopping, getting your oil changed, going to Costco (honestly just end this privileged first world existence I'm leading right now), or mowing the lawn even if it's grey and cold outdoors.  No matter what the terrible chore is, when your time is limited, people are frustrated and like to air that grievance.  Other people working that forty hour work week understand the annoyance of such time-thieving activities, and they don't mind the venting because they'll get to vent, too.

Each week the things that didn't get done the week before remain to be completed and just add to the stress of the forty hour workweek worker, encouraging more complaining as more and more colleagues fall into the same bottomless bit of tasks and limited time and growing fatigue.  

I got to thinking - first of all, none of these things are so bad.  Even though, personally, I think that bridal showers should all just morph into wine showers without further adieu, to each their own.  I want to be happy to be invited to such a function!  What makes these activities feel worse than they are is the complaining.  Complaining is just a habit of negative rather than positive thoughts popping into your head and being uttered before you think through whether it actually contributes much to a good dialogue.  The more we complain, the more we will complain.

What's worse than just the complaining in and of itself is the overall effect a constant string of complaining and negative thoughts has on you.  The more one sees the world painted in negatives, the more negative it all seems to be every day.  If we're creatures of agency (we are), then we get to control ourselves and our own output and how we act in society.  This habit of complaining - perpetuated by the limited time we all have in common and the activities we don't want to do in that limited time - just makes each day more negative.  We become trapped, feeling more and more down, the time off we do have shrouded in consistent slight misery, the days at work a little bit less enjoyable.

The slight misery encouraged by our complaining and subsequent bad attitudes isn't static, with things we can't wait to do hopefully always just around a corner of some kind.  But, as the author of that article suggests, those things are likely sufficiently costly that the forty hour work week will most definitely remain your ruler, and your limited time will probably force you back into friday drinks, dreading and vocalizing the dread you have about the next lame tea party you have to attend.  

If one is set on having and paying for the many and various "things" we seem to most definitely need living up here in cushy Canada, the forty-hour workweek is a necessary evil.  But that complaining lending insult to injury - that just might be a little addition all of our own making.  They say it takes twenty-one days to break an old habit/build a new one (well...I think Oprah and Deepak Chopra say that anyway), maybe we should all take a challenge to stifle that complaint.  I can't say for sure, but my guess is the stifling could lead to silencing some of those negative voices in the first place, and if that leads to a happier work day, workweek, it seems worth it to me.