“Study: Men Getting the Shaft” read the headline on Bourque. I’m a man and I find the word shaft pretty titillating, so I clicked it.

The article, whose actual title is Has bias pendulum swung against men? (the shaft part is in the byline: “Fewer college-bound, higher suicide rates, shorter life spans suggest males getting shaft”) begins with this:

Watch network sitcoms and you will find the dolts are usually men.

In TV commercials, it’s always the kids or the mothers who know the real score, not the fathers.

Affirmative-action programs by definition mean women get preference in hiring, school admissions, contracts and promotions.

While some social scientists may see these facts as harmless – or possibly even necessary reconditioning of society to correct past injustices against women – others are beginning to conclude that men are the real victims of discrimination so virulent it is shortening their life spans, causing them to be self-destructive and suicidal, crippling their educational opportunities and destroying a generation of fatherless children.

The article cites a number of facts that apparently support the hypothesis that men are getting royally screwed. Among them, that “boys have inferior reading and comprehension scores and lower graduation rates than girls”, and that the “suicide rates for boys, young fathers and older men range from four to 10 times higher than for their female counterparts.”

But most disturbingly, “Men, whose average life expectancy was formerly on a par with women, are now dying 10 years earlier.”

But is this because of “virulent” “discrimination” or due to other factors?

According to Life Expectancy, an article on About.com, “women almost always have higher life expectancies than men”. But it tells a different story than Shaft, first about the stats, saying the difference is “four to six years in North America and Europe to more than 13 years between men and women in Russia”, and second about the reasons:

The reasons for the difference between male and female life expectancy are not fully understood. While some scholars argue that women are biologically superior to men and thus live longer, others argue that men are employed in more hazardous occupations (factories, military service, etc). Plus, men generally drive, smoke and drink more than women – men are even more often murdered.

In Canada, men have narrowed the life expectancy gap with women to just 4.9 years, according to another article also on About.com, which cites Statistics Canada for the numbers.

So what the heck is with the Shaft article? Where are they getting their numbers? Russia? And who are “they”, anyway?

I can’t answer that last question, since the article is not attributed to anybody. Whoever wrote it isn’t stepping up the plate to claim it. For all we know, the person who wrote the article is from the commission whose findings the author relies on: the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men.

I didn’t spend much time on the Commission’s website, because I clicked the Resources link and boy oh boy, what a treasure trove of information I found, mostly on domestic violence.

We’ve got Man beaters behind closed doors – “Domestic violence by women is rising as the balance of power in the home shifts their way” – by Melanie Phillips:

[Research] reveals a remarkably different picture from the feminist stereotype of patriarchal bullies and female victims.

[W]omen are more likely than men to initiate violence against their spouses or companions and are more likely to be aggressive more frequently. Most violence is tit-for-tat. Nor is it the case that women attack men only in self-defence. Among female college students, for example, 29% admitted initiating assaults on a male companion.

…

In line with all this research, the British Crime Survey reported in 1996 that an equal proportion of men and women, 4.2%, had said they had been physically assaulted by a current or former spouse or lover in the past year. Only 41% were injured, and although more women than men were hurt, the difference was not that great: 47% of women injured compared with 31% of men.

There’s The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence: Male Victims:

The most controversial finding, as it would turn out, was that the rate of adult female-to-adult male intimate violence was the same as the rate of male-to-female violence. Not only that, but the rate of abusive female-to-male violence was the same as the rate of abusive male-to-female violence. When my colleague Murray Straus presented these findings in 1977 at a conference on the subject of battered women, he was nearly hooted and booed from the stage. When my colleague Suzanne Steinmetz published a scholarly article, ”The battered husband syndrome,” in 1978, the editor of the professional journal published, in the same issue, a critique of Suzanne’s article.

And then there’s Time to Dispose of Radical Feminist Pork, a stirring little piece that says the US Violence Against Women Act has benefited no one “except the radical feminists on its payroll”:

The Violence Against Women Act’s gender-specific title is pejorative: it’s based on the false, unscientific, unjust and blatantly offensive premise that men are innately violent and abusive toward women, making all women victims of men.

…

Feminists staged tantrums at the suggestion of innate math-aptitude differences between men and women, but the whole premise of the Violence Against Women Act is that men have an innate propensity to violence against women. It’s not because some are bad individuals or drunks or psychologically troubled, but because men want to keep women subservient in an oppressive patriarchal society.

I don’t have the time to examine each of these articles in depth, but each paints a similar picture of domestic violence: women are just as likely to physically abuse their partners as men are. But even in some of these articles, glimmers of a picture that is wholly painted over by articles like Feminist Pork can be seen:

[A]lmost all studies of domestic or partner violence, agree that women are the most likely to be injured as a result of partner violence.

And this, from a scholarly article called Surveillance for Homicide Among Intimate Partners – United States, 1981-1998.

The risk for death from [intimate partner homicide] among males was 0.62 times the risk among females.
…
Approximately one in three homicides of females is committed by current or former spouses or boyfriends, a group collectively referred to as intimate partners. Among male homicide victims, 5% are killed by intimate partners.

To me, this last quote is especially illustrative. In the United States, men have a little more than half as much risk of being killed by an intimate partner than women. Since one in three murders of women are committed by an intimate partner, you’d think that the statistics for men would work out to around one in five murdered by a partner, or perhaps one in six.

Instead, the rate is one in twenty. In other words, if a man is murdered in the US, there is a one-in-twenty chance it was his partner. If a woman is murdered, there is a one-in-three chance it was her partner.

The abuse and murder of men by their partners isn’t something to be taken lightly, even if the incidence and the seriousness of the abuse is significantly lower than for women. And other issues, such as declining academic performance in boys, also deserve serious consideration.

But blaming discrimination against men for their lower average life expectancy is ridiculous. If we stopped drinking, smoking, eating too much, working too hard, and above all, stopped trying to kill each other, we’d probably be able to give women a pretty good run for their money.

More filth from the American torture prison Abu Ghraib in Iraq. These photos date back to 2003 but are the second body blow to the American and British coalition in recent days, as they follow closely on the heels of video that depicts British soldiers brutally beating Iraqi youths.

A large selection of the new Abu Ghraib photos is available, but be warned, they are graphic and disturbing. The horrible picture I posted is among the mildest and least-offensive in comparison.

The core issue for BC voters now is not what David Emerson can do for them, but whether David Emerson is one of them.

———

The political culture in British Columbia is unique, and that is the polite description. In fact, politics in Canada’s westernmost province are often downright bizarre. BC politicians range from the eccentric, to the inept, to the crooked (two premiers were crazy; four have been tried in court).

BC’ers suffer never-ending polemic debates on all manner of issues: trade, sustainable development, tourism, drug policies, native land claims, official languages, transportation, and immigration.

The economy is a mixed bag, and the voting population is just as diverse. The 2001 census indicates that the immigration rate is more than double the provincial birth rate, outpacing every other province. Three of every four new Canadians coming to BC live in Vancouver, along with 65% of the population of the entire province. The city enjoys the highest average real estate prices in the country. Urban development is frenetic and arguably corrupt.

Municipal politics are far more influential in BC than in the rest of Canada. It seems the province’s issues naturally exist across all levels of government – from the municipal level into the provincial and again into the federal. Their former premier became a cabinet minister in the last federal government and the outgoing mayor of Vancouver was recently appointed to the Senate.

So what’s my point? Simply put, British Columbians have a right to say that politics on their side of the Rocky Mountains are unique (again, that is the polite description). And certainly, in many ways exception has become the defining feature of BC’s internal political dialogue. British Columbia prides itself on being terra incognito to the rest of Canada. A casual read of any Vancouver Sun column will help drive this point home. BC’s political commentary routinely describes the rest of Canada as out-of-touch with BC.

When Vancouver MP David Emerson unexpectedly joined the Conservatives this month after crossing the finish line of the federal election as a Liberal, one could reasonably expect an indignant response from BC voters. Not just because he lied and not just because he was arrogant (these are regular features in politics.) In addition to the usual arguments against this kind of democratic insult, Emerson has to contend with another factor. His floor crossing was not a made-in-BC idea, and underscores just how out-of-touch David Emerson is with his home province.

To many BC voters, Emerson is now equivalent to Belinda Stronach in Ontario or Scott Brison in Nova Scotia. He represents politics as usual in the rest of Canada, something that does not bode well in BC. Despite all his arguments to the contrary, David Emerson can no longer claim to be a unique product of British Columbia’s political culture. In the minds of many he is a denizen of political Ottawa and little else.

Emerson may claim to have British Columbia’s best interests at heart, but his actions are not consistent with that message. In fact, he is now significantly less empowered in the current government to act specifically as an agent for BC. Local Vancouver pundits were quick to point out that, in Stephen Harper’s cabinet, he lost his status as political minister to British Columbia (political minister roles were discontinued under Prime Minister Harper).

Emerson ran on his ability to bring home the goods for BC and continues to use that strategy to deflect criticisms about his defection and appointment to the Conservative cabinet. However, the core issue for voters now is not what David Emerson can do for them, but whether David Emerson is one of them.

Emerson was a qualified parachute candidate under Paul Martin; he has experience in the highest levels of BC’s provincial bureaucracy and corporate culture. As a result, few constituents were concerned with his undemocratic acclamation in the Vancouver—Kingsway Liberal riding association, where he was declared the candidate, not elected.

He squeaked into office without much agitation or competition. The Tory candidate who ran against Emerson in the Vancouver—Kingsway riding (whom he essentially replaced) garnered only 19% of the vote. The riding is historically an NDP bastion and not supportive of any past or current incarnation of the Reform or Conservative Party.

Voters were upset by his decision to join a party with little support in the riding. They roasted Stephen Harper and David Emerson for ignoring the democratic will of the electorate. The common feeling in Vancouver, as Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe writes, is that “[t]hese are two big-picture guys, arrogant types who want to get things done expeditiously.”

This is a dangerous classification for a politician in BC, which recently held a province–wide consultation on electoral reform that made recommendations geared towards empowering the individual voter. David Emerson’s unilateral decsion to change parties is the furthest thing one can get from a made-in-BC solution.

Emerson’s logic, that he can broker his new power on behalf of his constituents, is not wise. Further, if he can’t read the writing on the wall, he’s probably not tuned-in to his constituents. So the question is, was this a minor misinterpretation of the will of his constituents? Or is he simply out-of-touch?

David Emerson doesn’t live in Vancouver—Kingsway. Further, a Vancouver Sun poll from Feb. 8th concluded that he was not well-known in his riding. Just one quarter of respondents could identify their MP, and 90 per cent could not name a single accomplishment he’s made since being elected to represent the riding in 2004. Constituents are clearly not voting on his record.

Still, the Minister is annoyed by criticism. He has feigned ignorance and mock outrage, saying that he “did not realize that it would be the kind of firestorm of protest and so on that has developed.” He has even questioned the breadth of discontent. An opinion poll released yesterday found that 62 per cent of 800 British Columbians surveyed disapprove of Mr. Emerson’s defection, including 48 per cent who “strongly disapprove.”

Mr. Emerson responded by saying that he is “[resolved] to not be driven from office by what has been going on with a lot of the partisan zealots and party operatives who have been spinning the media.”

Media spin is one thing, but a deep misunderstanding of domestic political culture is quite another. It is the latter that is really driving the “firestorm of protest and so on”. It may not drive him from office, but it certainly underscores that Emerson – and Ottawa – is out-of-touch with BC.

———

This article was written by alevo.

The contoversy over the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed continues to rage. At least two people died in Pakistan yesterday as unrest there escalated:

Thousands rampaged Tuesday through two Pakistani cities to protest cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, burning buildings housing a hotel, banks and a KFC and breaking windows at a Holiday Inn and a Pizza Hut.

In Canada, the conservative magazine Western Standard – the “independent voice of the new west”, in their words – published the cartoons, prompting the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Mohamed Elmasry, to label their publication a hate crime, according to several publications (I have not been able to find a direct quote attributed to Elmasry that includes phrases like “hate crime” or “hate literature”, I’m taking reports that he made these sort of comments on faith, perhaps unwisely).

Ezra Levant, the magazine’s editor, responded with the freedom of speech argument and by calling Elmasry an “idiot”, several times.

The natural complement to the freedom of speech defense appears to be insults, something convincingly demonstrated on the blog of this self-described conservative. This post starts by lamenting the state of “individual freedom” in Canada, then labels Muslims who oppose the publication of the cartoons (in this case, entirely peacefully) as “barbarians”, and says that

Muslims riot. Muslims burn. Muslims rampage. And Muslims get their way.

Which is followed by a series of inflammatory and insulting comments that, ironically, include an incitement to violence in the jihadist tradition: “Time to stop pussy footing around and eliminate this leadership. Cut the head off the snake, the body dies.”

My point is not to bring up previous arguments. My point is to illustrate the connection between the opinions and commentary of some Canadian conservatives and Ezra Levant’s decision to print the cartoons in the conservative Western Standard.

Simply put, this is deliberate provocation, the inflaming of what one article calls “a proxy for the Clash of Civilizations”.

In Canada, this takes on a new dimension, one that is closely linked to the recent election of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. For some time now, I’ve been sensing a deliberate campaign to polarize political debate the same way it’s happened in the United States.

American politics is firmly entrenched in a war between two opposing ideological camps, the left and the right. Alevo has good insight into this:

[A]ny ideology stretched too far is dangerous…the world is not composed of ideological teams: the left, the right, the Christians, the Muslims. There is no prize to be won folks.

[Too often], people’s observations rely entirely on the assumption that a political left, or political right operates as a coherent stream of uniform thought.

The right has succeeded in demonizing their opponents to the point that the term liberal has become an epithet. Many American liberals now reject liberal in favour of progressive.

The book Rescuing Canada’s Right, which I haven’t read, but which claims to be a “blueprint for a conservative revolution” in Canada, includes, among other advice, “What Canadian conservatives can learn from the American and British experiences”. If there is anything to be learned, it is this: by polarizing debate, thrusting one’s opponents into ideological “teams” and resorting to false populism and jingoistic patriotism, one can win elections.

Canada’s Muslims aren’t terribly influential, nor are they militant. Insulting Muslims here isn’t meant to provoke a clash between them and Canadian non-Muslims. Instead, it’s aimed at provoking a clash between Canada’s numerous liberals and newly confident conservatives.

One problem with the attempt to paint moderate Canadians as Islamist-sympathizers who’d rather appease bin Laden than defend free speech is that a lot of paint has ended up splashed on conservatives in the process. And the shades – which run from matte bigot to semi-glossy xenophobe – aren’t too flattering.

Another problem is that for a strategy like this to work, Canadian liberals need to take the bait, which means responding in kind. Some do and some don’t. My hope is that most don’t, so that Canadians see two sides to this debate, one that is calm and thoughtful, the other that is angry, intolerant and proudly anti-intellectual.

Claire and I visited Denmark in 1998. We spent three days in Copenhagen and three days in Slagelse. Our host in Slagelse was the cousin of a friend who had visited Canada some five years earlier. He was more than happy to welcome Claire to Denmark that summer.

We called from Germany to announce our arrival and Lars promptly agreed to pick us up and have us stay at his house for a week. Upon arrival at the train station, I could sense he was rather disappointed to see Claire arrive with a man. I couldn’t blame him. If some Danish woman I met as a teen called out of the blue one day – well, you get the picture.

Danes tend to speak at least three, if not four languages – English and German being the most popular after Danish. They pay so much in taxes that there are no ads on TV. They’re not terribly witty. They drive sensible, small automobiles and they don’t eat out much. Danes love their monarchy, håndbold, Peter Schmeichel, Hans Christian Andersen, Tuborg, and in Lars’ case, Western heavy rock.

We went to Lars’ parents for dinner on the pretense of requesting a traditional Danish meal. We ate new white potatoes and meatballs. Lars’ mother, Ulla, told us how new white potatoes are quite expensive during certain months of the year and that they are considered a delicacy in some Danish homes. Lars’ father, Urgin, played us ditties on his hunting horn. We got drunk and rode a few of the families several bikes to a nearby field to see the world’s second largest suspension bridge, Storbæltsbroen.

All in all, the various Danes we met were affable, simple folks who appreciated the quiet dignity of a life well lived. They did not impose their politics on us or try to describe any philosophically Danish view of the world. They were nice, if not boring. Am I generalizing? Well, perhaps. There are 5,432, 330 other Danes we didn’t meet, but I’m sure they all love Peter Schmeichel too. Seriously though, cultural generalization is not helpful, even in anecdotes, and that is why I’m getting it out of my system before I move on to the subject of this post.

The Danes are in the news quite a bit these days. A small Danish newspaper with a circulation of 45,000 – the Jyllands-Posten – published a series of naughty cartoons, some in fact quite political, and they raised the ire of their satirical target. The cartoons are considered inflammatory solely because they are critical, if not mocking, of Muslim religion. One depicts the Prophet Mohammed wearing a turban with a bomb inside it. The implication is clear. The cartoons have been labeled offensive and insensitive. They have provoked debate. They have been reproduced in other European newspapers. These are the facts.

So, why are these cartoons so important? Why have some Arab governments, and other organized Islamic groups, been so critical of this artwork/commentary? On Thursday, the Jyllands-Posten reported that two illustrators who produced the cartoons had received death threats. Embassies have been closed in Denmark. The European Union flag has been burned, its ambassadors threatened in Arab States. Some countries are advocating trade sanctions against Denmark. It now appears that the Danish government itself is preparing a response. Over cartoons.

Arguably, this issue reached a tipping point at the moment the cartoons were reproduced in major French and German media. The Muslim Diasporas of these two nations are significantly large and vocal. Then newspapers in Spain, Switzerland, and the Netherlands published the cartoons. The western European media were in a feeding frenzy and for all intents and purposes they were feeding on European anti-Islamism. Not a pretty picture on Aljazeera.

In any political dust-up of this nature, there are always several competing agendas. In one that involves Islam there are vast and complicated nuances to these various agendas. I want to carefully avoid the kind of generalizations that I made earlier, so I will be blunt instead. There are certain political circles that want this to be a bigger issue than it is. I encourage responses to this post to address that fact directly.

I am equally surprised by two other components of this issue.

First, that the western model of free speech must apologize. While it is now imperative that the Danish newspaper owns up to its mea culpa, saying that this publishing choice was perhaps insensitive to its own audience of Danish Muslims, the apology is being framed as a broader capitulation on behalf of western global media. This perhaps says more about the nature of our global interconnectedness than it does about free speech, or modern criticisms of religion, but it is worth exploring further.

In this case, a local action had profound global political consequences. This is important because it calls into question the way in which generalizations (political and cultural) are made. This case illustrates an argument reduced to the lowest common denominator, resulting in false dichotomies of understanding that are wholly incapable of moving beyond an us-versus-them mentality. While I loathe interpretive uses of the term global village, I think we may want to consider it in this case.

Second, I suspect that free speech is not at the center of this debate at all, at least not in a meaningful way. If it were, then the same western global media that are chronicling the aftermath of the publication of these cartoons would be debating the pretense under which the cartoons were made. The same papers that make commentary on this issue have a vested interest in deciding if these cartoons were hateful, misanthropic or incite violence. This is the current test for limiting free speech, and I am not hearing that debate unfold.

Further, I think it is worth noting that few, if any, Canadian newspapers have published these cartoons for public discussion. I am dismayed that we may avoid a meaningful discussion of expression in order to uphold a vague understanding of cultural sensitivity.

A political cartoon is nothing new, nor is satire. Religion and politics should endure ridicule and criticism. Such provocations are a healthy test of the values implicit in any political or religious doctrine. It could be argued that a less-than-progressive interpretation of free speech is just as dangerous as a less-than-progressive interpretation of religion. I am afraid that this issue is a clash of both.

———

This article was written by alevo.