Should I send out cards? To whom would I send them?
But seriously, folks, I was never happy with that name, so why not change it? I am white therefore I have social privilege, therefore I mostly get what I want, on a global scale. It's all relative, right?
So, yes, the new blog is here.
ta ta
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Philisophical Musings on the "Good Life" and the problem of "Dirty Hands"
I did not watch the Inauguration of the new American President, although it seemed that's what many others were doing yesterday, in my facebook community, in the world of blog, in the online news sources I religiously read. I'm not quite sure what Obama said, and, to be truthful, although I'm still ecstatic that a black man was elected, a historic event, to be sure, and one that brings hope to many of the dispossessed, marginalized, colonized people of the world, I'm getting to feel a little jaded about the man himself. Not that he's not marvelous. Just that I wish he was a little bit more liberal, a little bit more of a social democrat. I read a blog the other day, citing a news article saying Obama supported Prop 8 in Cali. Yuck. Don't be a hater, is all I gotta say.
And then this morning I read one of my favorite blogs, Living the Frugal Life. The author, Kate, did watch the inauguration. And she had the following criticisms. She disagreed that we need to choose between safety and "our ideals" which she interpreted to mean freedom. In her counter-argument, she quotes Benjamin Franklin: "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both." She further disagrees that we do not need to apologise for our "way of life" and argues that the [North] American way of life is both excessive and hideously impoverished. Good arguments, Kate!!
Kate's post reminds me of my last assignment in my Philosophy class this semester, titled Ethics & Public Policy. We were discussing the problem of Dirty Hands. This is when a government (or a person) must make a choice between what is right (in a utilitarian sense) and what is moral. Thus, an example would be a political leader who must choose to condemn a person to torture in the hopes that said person will reveal the location of a bomb that will likely kill hundreds or even thousands of people. The utilitarian argument is that the right thing to do is to save the hundreds of people, and torture the individual who may or may not have knowledge of the location of the bomb. Thus, by ordering the torture of said individual, the politician now has Dirty Hands.
The assignment was to describe the problem of Dirty Hands, using Pinochet, the Chilean military dictator, as an example. However, now I see examples everywhere. My man and I are watching the Jessica Alba TV series, Dark Angel. Every episode I have seen so far could be an example of Dirty Hands! This is because the utilitarian arguments that resolve the problem of Dirty Hands do so by declaring that it just isn't a problem. By doing what is right for the majority, the moral dilemma disappears. But how can this be, in the era of international human rights? I argue that this just isn't so.
We always have a choice to do what is moral. Thus, in my torture/bomb example, I say it is perfectly acceptable to take the moral high ground, and refuse to torture one individual person, even if it could possibly save thousands. Consider this: what if the individual really knows nothing about the bomb? Then, the ends do not justify the means. They only do so if the individual has knowledge of the location of the bomb, and if the bomb can be defused in time to prevent harm to anyone. My problem with utilitarian arguments is that they use people as means. I protest. I say this is both immoral and unjust. I say this becomes the tyranny of the majority, and it's what justifies ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust. I say we have to retain our moral values, or we are lost.
But back to Kate's post. Choosing between safety and freedom looks like a problem of Dirty Hands to me. Politicians decide it is okay to take away people's liberty so as to ensure their safety? Okay, it sounds familiar. That is what I do with my child nearly every day. But he is a child, and he is (currently) incapable of assuring his own safety. But that is because he is a child, and I fully expect him to progress, in developmental terms, to a point where I no longer need to be responsible for his safety. I'm hoping that comes in the teen years, when he progresses to formal operational thought. However, I don't think it works to treat nations as children. Thus, paternalistic attitudes towards Third World countries, or to one's own population, are just plain insulting. As Franklin said, if we give up liberty, we don't deserve it. And, if we knowingly take liberty from others, we threaten our own.
And then this morning I read one of my favorite blogs, Living the Frugal Life. The author, Kate, did watch the inauguration. And she had the following criticisms. She disagreed that we need to choose between safety and "our ideals" which she interpreted to mean freedom. In her counter-argument, she quotes Benjamin Franklin: "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both." She further disagrees that we do not need to apologise for our "way of life" and argues that the [North] American way of life is both excessive and hideously impoverished. Good arguments, Kate!!
Kate's post reminds me of my last assignment in my Philosophy class this semester, titled Ethics & Public Policy. We were discussing the problem of Dirty Hands. This is when a government (or a person) must make a choice between what is right (in a utilitarian sense) and what is moral. Thus, an example would be a political leader who must choose to condemn a person to torture in the hopes that said person will reveal the location of a bomb that will likely kill hundreds or even thousands of people. The utilitarian argument is that the right thing to do is to save the hundreds of people, and torture the individual who may or may not have knowledge of the location of the bomb. Thus, by ordering the torture of said individual, the politician now has Dirty Hands.
The assignment was to describe the problem of Dirty Hands, using Pinochet, the Chilean military dictator, as an example. However, now I see examples everywhere. My man and I are watching the Jessica Alba TV series, Dark Angel. Every episode I have seen so far could be an example of Dirty Hands! This is because the utilitarian arguments that resolve the problem of Dirty Hands do so by declaring that it just isn't a problem. By doing what is right for the majority, the moral dilemma disappears. But how can this be, in the era of international human rights? I argue that this just isn't so.
We always have a choice to do what is moral. Thus, in my torture/bomb example, I say it is perfectly acceptable to take the moral high ground, and refuse to torture one individual person, even if it could possibly save thousands. Consider this: what if the individual really knows nothing about the bomb? Then, the ends do not justify the means. They only do so if the individual has knowledge of the location of the bomb, and if the bomb can be defused in time to prevent harm to anyone. My problem with utilitarian arguments is that they use people as means. I protest. I say this is both immoral and unjust. I say this becomes the tyranny of the majority, and it's what justifies ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust. I say we have to retain our moral values, or we are lost.
But back to Kate's post. Choosing between safety and freedom looks like a problem of Dirty Hands to me. Politicians decide it is okay to take away people's liberty so as to ensure their safety? Okay, it sounds familiar. That is what I do with my child nearly every day. But he is a child, and he is (currently) incapable of assuring his own safety. But that is because he is a child, and I fully expect him to progress, in developmental terms, to a point where I no longer need to be responsible for his safety. I'm hoping that comes in the teen years, when he progresses to formal operational thought. However, I don't think it works to treat nations as children. Thus, paternalistic attitudes towards Third World countries, or to one's own population, are just plain insulting. As Franklin said, if we give up liberty, we don't deserve it. And, if we knowingly take liberty from others, we threaten our own.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
On taking on another child
So once again, I have failed to live up to my revised blogging goal of once a month (down from the initial once a week goal in August, when I dipped my toe into the world of the blog). It has been over two months since I wrote a proper post. A lot has changed.
For one thing, the semester ended at the beginning of December, and exams were over by mid month. Along with all school-related stress, for a few weeks, at least. However, nature abhors a vacuum, and the car required a new radiator, which came with a $700 price tag. Gulp. Thank goodness for VISA.
As well, I acquired a new housemate in December, which brings with it a host of adjustments. So far, so good, but I struggle daily with control issues. And I still feel like a single parent.
We had his son with us for much of the holidays, which was both delightful AND exhausting. Our boys are 3 months apart in age, yet a year apart in the school system, so it's almost like twins... and I felt like a single parent to two demanding boys, one of whom I hardly know.
Just recently, his son declared to his mother (they live in Kelowna, 4 to 5 hours away through high mountain passes) that he wants to live with us. Although this is delightfully exciting to my fella, I am only looking forward to the end of the Family Maintenance hassle of regularly reduced pay-cheques. I don't know that I can gracefully cope with taking on the lion's share of caring for another 6 year old. Who will be the one to get them both off to school/daycare in the mornings? Who will be the one to struggle to make the grocery budget stretch to feed another mouth? (This kid eats like a teenage boy already!) Not to mention sussing out his food likes and dislikes. Who will chauffeur them around to school and extra curricular activities and playdates (Fiance doesn't have a driver's license)? Who will be the one to put them to bed every night, read stories, do homework with them, etc.? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer to all of the above is li'l ol' me. Sigh. I am exhausted just thinking about it.
I have a confession. I do not love the boy. And this makes perfect sense - I hardly know the boy. Unlike my own child, I have not carried him in my own body, I have not suckled him at my breast, I have not helped him through all the many 'firsts' of the baby and toddler years. In the past year, I have seen him a total of 5 times. Two of them were extended visits, but the other three were short, a single overnight visit when his folks were in town visiting and wanted free childcare to go out partying. But despite this understanding, I feel guilty for not loving him. I am fond of him, and I kiss and cuddle him, but when we have power struggles, that affection goes out the window. So I feel guilty, like I am a faulty mother. Send me back to the factory, there's an error with my feminine mystique!
I want assurances from my fiance that he will take on an equal share of the child-rearing tasks if his son is to come and live with us. He says he is willing, but, as with the housework and food preparation tasks, willingness may not be translated into action. I am silently resentful about the amount of unpaid household labour I preform, and I am unwilling to feel this way about his kid - it wouldn't be fair to the boy to be raised by someone who resented doing so.
So I wait, and worry. None of this will come to pass for months. The legal child custody agreement will have to be changed, which involves lawyers and legalese and the filing of documents. Will we need to go to court? I have no idea, as I have de facto custody of my own child, and all arrangements for child support are made privately. We can't take him on before this is complete, as we can't afford daycare out of pocket. We will need to apply for childcare subsidy from the provincial government, which we cannot do if his mother has legal custody.
However, I'm the only one with reservations. His dad is (of course) thrilled, my son is also thrilled (a built in playmate - there's no sibling rivalry at this point). My sister/roommate's response was, "I don't care, he's funny." Sometimes I wish I had a 'dangly' (as CannedAm said in her recent comment to my last post, the one that's over 2 months old - and my first ever comment, exciting and amazing as that is). If I wasn't a woman, all these concerns would vanish. Perhaps I need a wife of my own? ;)
For one thing, the semester ended at the beginning of December, and exams were over by mid month. Along with all school-related stress, for a few weeks, at least. However, nature abhors a vacuum, and the car required a new radiator, which came with a $700 price tag. Gulp. Thank goodness for VISA.
As well, I acquired a new housemate in December, which brings with it a host of adjustments. So far, so good, but I struggle daily with control issues. And I still feel like a single parent.
We had his son with us for much of the holidays, which was both delightful AND exhausting. Our boys are 3 months apart in age, yet a year apart in the school system, so it's almost like twins... and I felt like a single parent to two demanding boys, one of whom I hardly know.
Just recently, his son declared to his mother (they live in Kelowna, 4 to 5 hours away through high mountain passes) that he wants to live with us. Although this is delightfully exciting to my fella, I am only looking forward to the end of the Family Maintenance hassle of regularly reduced pay-cheques. I don't know that I can gracefully cope with taking on the lion's share of caring for another 6 year old. Who will be the one to get them both off to school/daycare in the mornings? Who will be the one to struggle to make the grocery budget stretch to feed another mouth? (This kid eats like a teenage boy already!) Not to mention sussing out his food likes and dislikes. Who will chauffeur them around to school and extra curricular activities and playdates (Fiance doesn't have a driver's license)? Who will be the one to put them to bed every night, read stories, do homework with them, etc.? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer to all of the above is li'l ol' me. Sigh. I am exhausted just thinking about it.
I have a confession. I do not love the boy. And this makes perfect sense - I hardly know the boy. Unlike my own child, I have not carried him in my own body, I have not suckled him at my breast, I have not helped him through all the many 'firsts' of the baby and toddler years. In the past year, I have seen him a total of 5 times. Two of them were extended visits, but the other three were short, a single overnight visit when his folks were in town visiting and wanted free childcare to go out partying. But despite this understanding, I feel guilty for not loving him. I am fond of him, and I kiss and cuddle him, but when we have power struggles, that affection goes out the window. So I feel guilty, like I am a faulty mother. Send me back to the factory, there's an error with my feminine mystique!
I want assurances from my fiance that he will take on an equal share of the child-rearing tasks if his son is to come and live with us. He says he is willing, but, as with the housework and food preparation tasks, willingness may not be translated into action. I am silently resentful about the amount of unpaid household labour I preform, and I am unwilling to feel this way about his kid - it wouldn't be fair to the boy to be raised by someone who resented doing so.
So I wait, and worry. None of this will come to pass for months. The legal child custody agreement will have to be changed, which involves lawyers and legalese and the filing of documents. Will we need to go to court? I have no idea, as I have de facto custody of my own child, and all arrangements for child support are made privately. We can't take him on before this is complete, as we can't afford daycare out of pocket. We will need to apply for childcare subsidy from the provincial government, which we cannot do if his mother has legal custody.
However, I'm the only one with reservations. His dad is (of course) thrilled, my son is also thrilled (a built in playmate - there's no sibling rivalry at this point). My sister/roommate's response was, "I don't care, he's funny." Sometimes I wish I had a 'dangly' (as CannedAm said in her recent comment to my last post, the one that's over 2 months old - and my first ever comment, exciting and amazing as that is). If I wasn't a woman, all these concerns would vanish. Perhaps I need a wife of my own? ;)
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Families and Poverty in Canada, some brief thoughts
One of my classes this semester is Sociology of Families. It's an upper level course, and has an extra credit (4 instead of the average 3). Thus, there is a LOT of reading. Our participation mark is worth 25% of our final grade, and includes weekly homework assignments. This week, we are reading about families and poverty.
This is an issue near and dear to my own heart - I am poor. I'm not poor in an absolute sense, I have a home and food in my fridge. But I do not make ends meet on a monthly basis, and without my credit card, I might not be able to put gas in my car or feed my son cheese and meat.
Luckily for me, I live in Canada, and not the United States. Thus, I have basic medical. My son also has his basic dental and ophthalmologic care covered by the government (but not mine, I'm expected to pay out of pocket). As well, I'm eligible for numerous redistributive social payments, from lower income taxes for low income families (I get it all back, not that it's much, but I'm sure Americans don't have the same benefits, so I'm lucky in comparison) to social benefits like the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the National Child Benefit Supplement, which, combined, gives me a cheque for about $250 a month. This definetly helps pay the rent. I've also recently recieved a one time tax free payment of $250 to help me "deal with higher energy costs" I was eligible for this because of the above mentioned benefit programs.
Despite these efforts by the Canadian and provincial governments to help out people such as me, the working poor (okay, I'm not working right now, but I was, up until mid-July, when I quit after giving 13 months notice, to focus on my education. Now I'm living on student loans, another government financed program), not much is shifting, demographically. Women and immigrants (especially "visible minorities") are still struggling, even after a sustained period of economic growth and job creation (1994 - 2004). The evidence suggests that it was upper income Canadians who benefitted from that economic growth, and the gap between the highest and lowest quintile is growing.
Single mothers are hit especially hard. Lone parent families comprise about one in five families with children. Yet among families classified by Stats Canada as income poor, over half are single parent families. So, it is children who are increasingly living in poverty, with all the associated negative outcomes. This is despite a 1989 unanimous resolution by the House of Commons to end child poverty by the year 2000. Hey, folks, that was 8 years ago! Child poverty hasn't changed in 25 years!
So, it seems to me that we, as Canadians, are willing to pay lip service to the plight of women and children in our patriarchal world, but when push comes to shove, and it's time to reduce deficits, we're gonna cut social benefits to women and children (UI becomeing EI, and reducing eligibility from 70% of applicants to only 30%). What is my government saying to me? Sounds like, "go get married woman, find a man to take care of you and your kid."
Yikes. The second wave of feminism began in the 70's.
This is an issue near and dear to my own heart - I am poor. I'm not poor in an absolute sense, I have a home and food in my fridge. But I do not make ends meet on a monthly basis, and without my credit card, I might not be able to put gas in my car or feed my son cheese and meat.
Luckily for me, I live in Canada, and not the United States. Thus, I have basic medical. My son also has his basic dental and ophthalmologic care covered by the government (but not mine, I'm expected to pay out of pocket). As well, I'm eligible for numerous redistributive social payments, from lower income taxes for low income families (I get it all back, not that it's much, but I'm sure Americans don't have the same benefits, so I'm lucky in comparison) to social benefits like the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the National Child Benefit Supplement, which, combined, gives me a cheque for about $250 a month. This definetly helps pay the rent. I've also recently recieved a one time tax free payment of $250 to help me "deal with higher energy costs" I was eligible for this because of the above mentioned benefit programs.
Despite these efforts by the Canadian and provincial governments to help out people such as me, the working poor (okay, I'm not working right now, but I was, up until mid-July, when I quit after giving 13 months notice, to focus on my education. Now I'm living on student loans, another government financed program), not much is shifting, demographically. Women and immigrants (especially "visible minorities") are still struggling, even after a sustained period of economic growth and job creation (1994 - 2004). The evidence suggests that it was upper income Canadians who benefitted from that economic growth, and the gap between the highest and lowest quintile is growing.
Single mothers are hit especially hard. Lone parent families comprise about one in five families with children. Yet among families classified by Stats Canada as income poor, over half are single parent families. So, it is children who are increasingly living in poverty, with all the associated negative outcomes. This is despite a 1989 unanimous resolution by the House of Commons to end child poverty by the year 2000. Hey, folks, that was 8 years ago! Child poverty hasn't changed in 25 years!
So, it seems to me that we, as Canadians, are willing to pay lip service to the plight of women and children in our patriarchal world, but when push comes to shove, and it's time to reduce deficits, we're gonna cut social benefits to women and children (UI becomeing EI, and reducing eligibility from 70% of applicants to only 30%). What is my government saying to me? Sounds like, "go get married woman, find a man to take care of you and your kid."
Yikes. The second wave of feminism began in the 70's.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
First grader behavioural issues
Oh, what to do. My first grader is having behavioural problems at school. He disrupts the class. Here is an excerpt from a note she wrote me today in his planner:
"He also wants to lie down regularly on the floor and has a great difficulty when required to attend to lessons.... Please speak with him, as I am concerned about this behaviour if he will be accompanying us on Tuesday's field trip. Your support from home is appreciated."
The teacher is quite experienced, has a great attitude (we had a half hour conference about 3 weeks ago, I got a great vibe from her), and stresses positive interactions with him. But this is the first time my child's "strong will" has been an issue for a teacher or caregiver. He has been with his childcare provider for two years, now, and she was as surprised as I was to hear he has attention issues in class.
But now it sounds like he won't be able to go on the class field trip! As my only notification has been from the above planner note, I may be jumping to conclusions, but off the school grounds, safety is an issue for teachers, and if he can't listen in class, how about at the pumpkin patch?
Of course, the field trip falls on a day that I am unable to participate, or I'd just go with them, and make certain the little you-know-what minds his p's and q's. How can I possibly assure this teacher that he will behave?
"He also wants to lie down regularly on the floor and has a great difficulty when required to attend to lessons.... Please speak with him, as I am concerned about this behaviour if he will be accompanying us on Tuesday's field trip. Your support from home is appreciated."
The teacher is quite experienced, has a great attitude (we had a half hour conference about 3 weeks ago, I got a great vibe from her), and stresses positive interactions with him. But this is the first time my child's "strong will" has been an issue for a teacher or caregiver. He has been with his childcare provider for two years, now, and she was as surprised as I was to hear he has attention issues in class.
But now it sounds like he won't be able to go on the class field trip! As my only notification has been from the above planner note, I may be jumping to conclusions, but off the school grounds, safety is an issue for teachers, and if he can't listen in class, how about at the pumpkin patch?
Of course, the field trip falls on a day that I am unable to participate, or I'd just go with them, and make certain the little you-know-what minds his p's and q's. How can I possibly assure this teacher that he will behave?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Laziness has Nothing to do with Poverty
My inspiration for my last post was MomGrind's Blog Action Day post, which generated lots of interesting discussion in the comments. I added my two cents worth, was responded to (cool, or what?!), replied to the responses, and then got the following reply from MomGrind (the quote is from my reply):
“What I’d really like to argue is that poverty is not at all related to laziness.” I agree. I assume that a very small portion of poverty cases can be explained by laziness or by lack of drive, and those are the people who would indeed exploit a welfare system. But my assumption is that the vast majority of cases have nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with bad luck, lack of opportunity and other factors that have been mentioned here.
I don't want to leave a further comment, but I have a response to that, so I'm posting it here, on my private blog that no one's ever looked at, because no one knows about it!
I would argue that zero cases of poverty are related to laziness. I believe that the instances of welfare abuse, which has been chalked up to laziness, is actually the result of learned helplessness.
I was, again, reading away in my ethics textbook (Rachels, 2007, p. 97-98, see last post for full reference), this time about Utilitarianism (the founding ethical principle of democracy), when I came across the description of a psychological experiment from the 50's, apparently before animal rights and ethics committees @universities.
This was @Harvard. The experiment had 40 dogs in a "shuttlebox," a device consisting of two compartments separated by a barrier, initially set at the height of the dog's backs. The floor delivered electric shocks. At first, the dogs could escape the shocks by jumping over the barrier. Then they shocked the dogs on the other side as they landed. The dogs learned to anticipate the shocks, yet jumped over anyways. Then they blocked the passage between compartments with glass so the dogs couldn't escape the shocks at all. After 10 or 12 days the dogs ceased to resist the shocks. This was in an experiment to study "learned helplessness," a topic the psychologists thought important for the mentally ill (ibid).
If we extend the concept of learned helplessness to people experiencing poverty, who have had "bad luck, lack of opportunity and other factors that have been mentioned," it can be seen how people can stop resisting their circumstances, and essentially give up, thus being perceived as "lazy."
“What I’d really like to argue is that poverty is not at all related to laziness.” I agree. I assume that a very small portion of poverty cases can be explained by laziness or by lack of drive, and those are the people who would indeed exploit a welfare system. But my assumption is that the vast majority of cases have nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with bad luck, lack of opportunity and other factors that have been mentioned here.
I don't want to leave a further comment, but I have a response to that, so I'm posting it here, on my private blog that no one's ever looked at, because no one knows about it!
I would argue that zero cases of poverty are related to laziness. I believe that the instances of welfare abuse, which has been chalked up to laziness, is actually the result of learned helplessness.
I was, again, reading away in my ethics textbook (Rachels, 2007, p. 97-98, see last post for full reference), this time about Utilitarianism (the founding ethical principle of democracy), when I came across the description of a psychological experiment from the 50's, apparently before animal rights and ethics committees @universities.
This was @Harvard. The experiment had 40 dogs in a "shuttlebox," a device consisting of two compartments separated by a barrier, initially set at the height of the dog's backs. The floor delivered electric shocks. At first, the dogs could escape the shocks by jumping over the barrier. Then they shocked the dogs on the other side as they landed. The dogs learned to anticipate the shocks, yet jumped over anyways. Then they blocked the passage between compartments with glass so the dogs couldn't escape the shocks at all. After 10 or 12 days the dogs ceased to resist the shocks. This was in an experiment to study "learned helplessness," a topic the psychologists thought important for the mentally ill (ibid).
If we extend the concept of learned helplessness to people experiencing poverty, who have had "bad luck, lack of opportunity and other factors that have been mentioned," it can be seen how people can stop resisting their circumstances, and essentially give up, thus being perceived as "lazy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
