So it’s semi-official: Canada will go to the polls for the third time in four years for another federal election. According to a spokesperson for Harper, the election will be held October 14th. And apparently, it looks as though the Conservatives stand a good chance at a majority.

A stable majority government would be a nice change to the four years of extreme partisanship under fragile minority rule. And personally, I think the Liberals have had too much time at the helm. I think Harper’s done a good job so far and I’d like to see him stay on for a while. Apparently, I’m not alone in this sentiment.

The survey shows that, of the major parties, the Conservatives are picked by 38 per cent of voters as the best able to manage the economy should there be a slowdown. The Liberals are picked by 27 per cent, the NDP by 8 per cent and the Greens by 3 per cent.

Mr. Harper’s campaigners have already signalled they will run the campaign on their economic credentials, lashing out at the Liberal plan for a carbon tax, saying the plan would harm the economy.

In head-to-head comparisons, Mr. Harper is found by Canadians to lead Mr. Dion in a number of areas, including who is better able to deal with the United States and the economy, and who offers the most positive vision of the country. Mr. Harper is also seen by 53 per cent of Canadians as the most decisive leader, compared with 17 per cent for Mr. Dion.

If you are, like me, a Canadian expat wanting to vote in this election, but unable to make it to the polls in your home riding, here’s how you can register to vote by mail.

Bookmark to:

Earlier this week, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted in favour of adopting a report that calls for less sexism in advertising. Apparently concerned by constructions of masculinity and femininity appearing in advertisments, the European Parliament adopted the non-legally binding report by Swedish MEP Eva-Britt Svensson that calls on member states to make a greater effort to monitor how gender is portrayed in advertising:

Constant images of women in the kitchen while men clean their cars outside are reinforcing sexist stereotypes, the study argues.
…
“MEPs call on the EU institutions and member states to develop awareness actions against sexist insults or degrading images of women and men in advertising and marketing,” the lawmakers said in a statement after adopting the report by 504 votes in favor, 110 against and 22 abstentions.

The report also called on the media and advertising to set good examples from a gender perspective.

Before the vote, Svensson told the German news agency DPA that people are often not aware of how much they are influenced by advertising. “When women and men are portrayed in a stereotypical way the consequence may be that it becomes difficult in other contexts to see women and men’s resources and abilities in areas other than those of the traditional gender roles.”

The report also calls for more ‘realistic’ portrayals of bodies in advertising, and suggests an incentive program be adopted in each member country to reward companies who do the most to break down the “gender straitjacket” in their advertisements.

Good.

Bookmark to:

Trust the Daily Show to compile clips of glaring hypocrisy in the conservative media’s defence of Sarah Palin versus their attacks of Hillary Clinton:

Bookmark to:

Last week, the results of a multi-national study of nearly 28,000 men was released (published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine) that found that men’s idea of masculinity differs from the stereotype. Apparently, the ideal “man’s man” is an ‘honourable, devoted partner,’ not someone who is constantly on the prowl for sex, or absorbed by career drive.

The survey of 27,839 men in eight countries found that being seen as “honourable” was their highest ideal (picked by 33 per cent), followed closely by being in control of their lives (28 per cent). Most claimed to want love ahead of sex.

At the bottom of the scale, only one per cent rated a great sex life as the top male quality, while three per cent chose financial success.

Views of maleness bog down in stereotypes, the team’s leader, Canadian Michael Sand, said.

He rejects the view that men are from Mars and women from Venus: “When you actually go out and systematically collect data, you find men are from Bank Street and women are from Laurier. They live around the corner,” he said.

“Men routinely said that being in good health, having a good family life, having a harmonious relationship with my wife or my partner is way more important than … a successful career, having a nice home, having a satisfying sex life.

“Being seen as honourable — I think men are telling us that how my community views my integrity and my value system is important to me.”

Men are also saying, “I want to be seen as a good father, a successful partner, far more than I want to be seen as a stud,” Mr. Sand said. “All of these things point to the importance — not in keeping with stereotypes — of interpersonal relationships to men, as well as to women of course.

Does anyone see the problem with a study like this?

I think this study overlooks the structural nature of concepts of masculinity. While most men may say they don’t personally admire the sex-addled, career-driven alpha male stereotype, it is undeniable that these constructs of masculinity and social expectations of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviour/traits for men influence both men’s behaviour and also the way we think about that behaviour.

So we see beer commercials, movies, websites that glorify this alpha male behaviour and reinforce the seemingly innate ‘dominance’ of men over women: be that in sexual politics, the work place, or in every day encounters.

Why is it we view men wanting a rewarding family life as “honourable”? Why aren’t we questioning the double-standards that clearly still exist in constructing male behaviour as ‘honourable’ and the use of ‘honour’ as a defining characteristic of masculinity. Radical feminists take issue with the concept of honour as something men possess and women manage to defile on their behalf.

But good try! Thanks for looking into the construction of masculine ideals. Now let’s take a look at why those characteristics are prioritized above ones considered ‘feminine’ and reinforce the dominance of masculinity/men in society.

Bookmark to:

Last week, a ‘landmark study’ was released that found social injustice to be a more significant factor in global health than access to medical care. Commissioned by the World Health Organization, a panel of 19 experts (including Amartya Sen!) formed the Commission on Social Determinants of Health and sought to find the “cause behind the cause” of global disease and health crises.

“Social injustice is killing people on a grand scale,” the introduction reads.

“In countries at all levels of income, health and illness follow a social gradient: the lower the socioeconomic position, the worse the health. It does not have to be this way and it is not right that it should be like this.”

To underscore the gaps, a number of stark statistics are featured, including the fact that a girl born today in the African country of Lesotho can expect to live 42 fewer years than one born in Japan.

The 256-page report, entitled Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health, also challenges current economic dogma, stating that global trade and an aversion to public spending on social programs is not improving the lot of most people in the world, but making things worse.

“Economic growth is without question important, particularly for poor countries, as it gives the opportunity to provide resources to invest in improvement of the lives of their population. But growth by itself, without appropriate social policies to ensure reasonable fairness in the way its benefits are distributed, brings little benefit to health equity,” the report says.

The report discussed how, even within small countries, life expectancies can vary greatly. Their recommendations to overcome social injustice focus on three overall areas:

1. Improve daily living conditions
2. Tackle the inequitable distribution of power, money, and resources
3. Measure and understand the problem and assess the impact of action

Call me skeptical, but I have a feeling #2 is going to be difficult unless we see a global rise in socialism that finally does away with capitalist hegemony once and for all:

One of the commissioners was Canadian professor Monique Bégin of the University of Ottawa. She pointed out that social inequalities and the abandonment of social programs by more conservative administrations over the past decades has had an affect on Canadians’ health, as well:

“Canada likes to brag that for seven years in a row the United Nations voted us ‘the best country in the world in which to live.’ Do all Canadians share equally in that great quality of life? No, they don’t. The truth is that our country is so wealthy that it manages to mask the reality of food banks in our cities, of unacceptable housing, of young Inuit adults’ very high suicide rates.”

Prof. Bégin said she hopes the report will be a “wake-up call for action towards truly living up to our reputation.”

Similar “health gradients” are found in Australia as well. According to a WHO press release on the report:

• Life expectancy for Indigenous Australian males is shorter by 17 years than all other Australian males.
• Maternal mortality is 3–4 times higher among the poor compared to the rich in Indonesia. The difference in adult mortality between least and most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK is more than 2.5 times.
• Child mortality in the slums of Nairobi is 2.5 times higher than in other parts of the city. A baby born to a Bolivian mother with no education has 10% chance of dying, while one born to a woman with at least secondary education has a 0.4% chance.
• In the United States, 886 202 deaths would have been averted between 1991 and 2000 if mortality rates between white and African Americans were equalized. (This contrasts to 176 633 lives saved in the US by medical advances in the same period.)
• In Uganda the death rate of children under 5 years in the richest fifth of households is 106 per 1000 live births but in the poorest fifth of households in Uganda it is even worse – 192 deaths per 1000 live births – that is nearly a fifth of all babies born alive to the poorest households destined to die before they reach their fifth birthday. Set this against an average death rate for under fives in high income countries of 7 deaths per 1000.

And clearly biology doesn’t explain these differences.

Based on these findings, several countries have already committed to taking on board the three overarching recommendations. Brazil, Canada, Chile, Iran, Kenya, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Sweden, and the UK have become ‘country partners’ on the basis of their commitment to make progress on the social determinants of health equity and are already developing policies across governments to tackle them. The WHO is now going to be calling upon Member States to take this report to their health agencies and develop policies to address social injustice as a primary determinant of health problems.

But as the report suggests, there is a vested interest in the status quo and until distribution of wealth and resources is addressed, it is unlikely we will see the health/life expectancy/education/everything gap close.

So who’s up for a revolution?

Bookmark to: