QUID NOVI

But she’s a woman. Shewears skirts and fitted suits.Pink suits. And she isblonde. Although she hastwo children, she preferredher career in business tothe apron, the church bookclub and the cat fosterhome, she has divorced…twice! And guess what? Shedates men, and some evensay that she has sex withthem. Ever heard of that?Politicians having a life, notdressing as if their mompicked their outfit, datingand having sex? Ewww!Because she is a woman,Ms. Stronach’s crossing thefloor to the Liberal partywas considered as hightreason. “Blonde Bombshell”,commented the NationalPost. Some MPs calledher a “dipstick”, and wentso far as to say that shewas “whoring herself to theLiberals”, though theyadded that such commentsThe Square: Me & My Patriarchyby Nick Dodd (Law II)were not in any way discriminatory,and that theywould equally apply to maledefectors. (Strangelyenough, I don’t rememberanybody uttering similarlysexually-charged insultsabout Scott Brison or GarthTurner.)In my opinion, thoseevents, including the subsequentcomments of PeterMcKay who called Ms.Stronach “a dog” and ofRalph Klein concerning Ms.Stronach’s …uh… bones,should alarm every concernedCanadian citizen forthe following reasons:1) Misogynistic dinosaurslike the MPs who viciouslyattempted todemean Ms. Stronachthrough sexual slurs areamong the people who getto vote on legal issues thatimpact on women. I personallywouldn’t trust anyonelike Mr. MacKay, a man whostill can’t get over the factthat his then-girlfriend mayhave different opinions thanhim, to make wise and respectfuldecisions concerningmy relationship with myuterus, the extent to whicha defence lawyer would beallowed to expose theminute details of my sexualhistory for everyone to see,or, should I decide ever toreproduce, my ability toraise my litter and pursue afulfilling career withoutbeing reminded that childrenare but a “lifestylechoice” for which careerwomen – and femalelawyers, for that matter –don’t deserve a special taxtreatment.MARCH 6, 20072) The people who utteredthose sexual slurs didn’teven get a slap on thewrist. No exclusion from thecaucus, no public disapprobationfrom the party’s leaders.On the contrary, manycheered, and happily joinedthe slaughter. Organizationsought to be accountable totheir constituents and to thepublic at large when theirmembers get out of hand,and start running aroundchanting sexist slogans (e.g.“NO MEANS have aNOtherbeer”), cracking insensitiverape jokes or scatteringother forms of genderbasedhate speech.3) More importantly:Where was the public outcry?If we do believe, as apeople, in egalitarian values,and in the importanceof eradicating all forms ofdiscrimination, surely weought to protest fiercelyagainst it when it’s lookingat us in the face. As a matterof fact, such silence isoutrageous, and this socalled“tolerance” or “respectfor free speech”,cruelly misplaced. For a long time, duringmy youth and youngmanhood, I thought mymom was crazy. While sheoften seemed to run thehouse like her personal fiefdom,she still managed tooccasionally get upset abouthow no one respected her, orcared about her wants andneeds. “Respect her?!” Iwould demand incredulouslyto friends, brothers, my father,“all we do is respecther!” “Wants and needs,” Iwould cry, “we always haveto do everything the way shewants.” I believed thateveryone in the housemarched to my mother’stune. My proof positive wasthat if she was upset, thehouse was quiet whereas ifshe was happy, everyone feltok being rambunctious.I had learned to be a patriarch.Perhaps not as overt apatriarch as one can imagine,but a patriarch nonetheless.I learned it at home, inschool, from the television Iwatched and the music I listenedto. This is why I feltok getting angry with mymother when she, for example,was a half-hour latepicking me up from rugbypractice. Didn’t she knowthat I had important thingsto do? And how could shecondemn me for my righteousanger?! If I was goingto succeed in this world, Iwas going to have to get myhomework done!Rarely did I give thought tothe fact that my mother hadgone to work at 7am just soshe could leave early andbrave the rush-hour traffic toarrive just in time to pick meup. Never did I wonder whymy father wasn’t makingsuch sacrifices. My understandingof gender roles waswhole, complete, and, despitethe efforts of somearound me, including mymother, staunchly unchallenged.Scary stuff.Last month the Gazette ran aweeklong special on womenin the workforce. In short,the question it was askingwas [note: editorial honestyto follow] how a societybased on patriarchy and specificgender roles was goingto adjust to the (glaciallyslow) transfer of economicpower (through, for example,education) from men towomen. What will happen,we were asked, when themajority of our labour forceis saddled with the heavyburden of the domestic workthat currently accompaniesthe female gender role? Willthe fundamentals of theworkforce have to change?Or, as has been happeningfor the last century, willwomen just be expected toshoulder the extra role 3