Not leadership, just bossiness

A friend sent around a petition against Doug Ford’s abrupt late-stage reduction of Toronto’s city council. Once of her friends said that she thought it was a good idea: “it will save a huge amount of money & will make governance much less cumbersome.   Savings can be redirected to more affordable housing, improved public health ,economic development initiatives/etc.  As well, don’t forget that every person in Toronto can easily meet with their council member for the cost of a cheap TTC fare – unlike most of the rest of the province. I don’t see it as an abuse of power, but rather leadership to try to get things under control here.”

Obviously, I disagreed, and responded:

I think a bit more information needs to be put in here. The salaries of the councillors cut would be a total of $2.28 million a year. This city’s budget is $11.1 billion. The TTC budget is just short of $2 billion. The salaries of the councillors cut would be equal to 0.1% of the TTC budget. And since staff would have to be hired to do some of the functions that the councillors will no longer have the time for, the savings will be even less. (Doug Ford stated that the plan would save $25 million, but he has not offered any breakdown or support for that number, and we need to remember that throughout the campaign and throughout his brief career in civic politics before that he had a considerable record of statements that were at best unsupported and at worse directly at odds with available facts. In any event, in Toronto’s budget, even $25 million is much less than it sounds, and the negative results would vitiate the savings.)

Add to that the extra cost of redoing the election on very short notice. It takes 9 months to prepare for an election. It is a very large and expensive logistical task. It is in fact unlikely that the necessary work even can be done in the time remaining; the revised deadline for councillor nominations would not even allow enough time to get the ballots printed. And since the school boards would not be redistricted, it would make future elections much more expensive and complicated than they are now.

With a council of 25, each councillor would represent a population equal to that of Thunder Bay. No other city is having such a reduction in local representation proposed. One person representing 100,000 people directly is not efficient (it also makes the ease of getting to their office moot; a councillor would not have enough time to meet with twice as many people). Saying that fewer councillors would be more efficient is like saying you can be more efficient in a busy restaurant by cutting the number of cooks or waiters in half.

Councillors do far more than just argue in council; they are responsible for quite a lot of coordination, management, and decision making. The things they make happen will not stop needing to happen. The public health and development initiatives you would like to see are much less likely to happen with half as much councillor (and councillor’s office) time per resident to help make them happen.

I should also mention that the reason we do not have more transit already is not due to there being too many councillors. The Transit City plan, had it not been killed by Rob Ford, was fully funded by city and province and was the product of a full-sized council. would already be delivering improved transit across the city. The Line 1 extension and the Eglinton Crosstown, the only two recent initiatives to go ahead, were both put in place under Miller, and the Eglinton nearly also got killed by Ford. Ford replaced a fully agreed, funded plan with an unfunded plan that never got started. John Tory then put in his own back-of-napkin plan, also unfunded, that still has not moved forward in 4 years. This is not because there are too many councillors. It is because two mayors decided to throw out plans that had already been put in place. It is an argument for a stronger council, a weaker mayor, and more control by experts. Tory has pushed through initiatives that will cost the city billions (yes, billions) in place of more efficient, cost-effective initiatives that had the support of experts. What we need is specifically not a mayor who doesn’t have to listen to others.

Beyond this, what Doug Ford is doing is a blatant violation of established principles and agreements (such as the Toronto-Ontario Cooperation and Consultation Agreement). It is a single-handed rubbishing of a decision that had been made with extensive consultation and expert analysis. It has quite obviously not been thought through. It is directly disrupting a democratic process and overriding the will of a city’s elected representatives. It shows open contempt for democracy and process, and it does so transparently in the service of score-settling against political opponents and of centralizing of power.

I find it truly distressing that any reasonable person could speak in favour of this frank abuse of power. Doug Ford’s behaviour is unworthy of an elected official and unworthy of the office he has been entrusted with, an office that is charged with representing the voice and will of the people. Single-handed overriding of a districting that was done with extensive consultation and consideration is not leadership. Bossiness, yes, but in no way leadership.

Shut up, Jordan. (or: Who can speak for First Nations)

Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, has made a practice of being a loud and regressive voice on subjects he doesn’t understand and can’t be bothered to learn about. One of those things is Canada’s First Nations. He claims that he can speak for them because he participated in a couple of long ceremonies and was made an honorary member of a tribe, or something like that.

I have some things to say about that. About him and everyone like him who wants to claim a voice in regard to First Nations.

Let me tell you a bit about myself, who I am, and who I am not and cannot speak for.

I grew up on the Stoney Nakoda reserve at Morley, west of Calgary. My parents are from the US, of entirely European descent (there’s talk in my mom’s family that a great-great-grandmother may have been American Indian, but that’s just talk and has nothing to do with heritage).

My parents worked on the reserve, my dad as a writer, photographer, translator, etc. for the tribe, my mom as a teacher in the school. Our family was “adopted” into the tribe—i.e., my father and mother have a Stoney family, brothers, sisters, etc., and Stoney names; my brother and I also have Stoney names. I was born after my family started living there, and so I was given my Stoney name before I was even born. It’s Îpabi Daguskan, Son of Rock or Stonechild.

I spent my childhood on the reserve. We went to I don’t even know how many pow-wows, feasts, and other events. Hundreds of hours. Can’t say how many times I fell asleep to the sound of drumming and singing while my dad talked to everyone. EVERYONE. And in Stoney. (My dad is fluent in Stoney. I regret to say that I am not. I barely know any.)

I rode the school bus with the Stoney kids. I went to school with them right through grade 9 (then went to a different high school for reasons that had more to do with the white kids in my class).

My parents don’t live on the reserve now, they live near it, but they retain their strong bonds to the community.

So. You’d think, given that my exposure to and participation in and welcoming in the Stoney Nakoda First Nation is several orders of magnitude greater than Jordan Peterson’s, I’d feel that I could speak for them or on their behalf or or or.

NO.

My parents don’t either.

All the time I was growing up, I could see that their reality, what they were subject to, how the world looked to them, was different from my experience, background, expectations, what I had to face.

I watched the cartoons on Saturday mornings, cartoons I knew the Stoney kids watched too, and in these cartoons, if there were any “Indians” at all, they were villains.

In school I learned from books that focused entirely on my culture and people like me. My mom was very frustrated as a teacher to have to use material that had no cultural meaning to the students. Opaque references.

If I went into Calgary, I was surrounded by my own cultural heritage and people who looked like me and, to the extent possible for a dorky kid who sucked at behaving himself, I could fit in. The Stoneys, in town, were looked at as “those Indians.”

I remember Moses Fox, a kid I rode the school bus with. He really picked on me a lot. Of course, kids are mean, but then you move on and grow up.

Moses didn’t. By the time I had my BFA from the U of Calgary, he was lying under cold earth. Like many other Stoney kids.

I lived my whole childhood on a reserve. My family was welcomed and was part of the reserve culture. I was given a Stoney name. I was carried around in a hand-made moss bag like any baby on the reserve. I have a picture of myself as a little kid in full pow-wow dress. But.

I rode the bus with the Stoney kids. I went to the feasts, the camp meetings and house meetings, sat through innumerable long prayers and testimonials and songs in both Stoney and English. But.

But I did not come from their heritage. And I did not carry around with me what they all carry with them, good and bad. I could move on and move in the world in places that were made for people with my face and background and not theirs.

And so I would never, ever, speak for them. Not ever. I would never, ever lecture a member of Canada’s First Nations on how to be better at being a member of Canada’s First Nations.

I do not say I am Stoney. I’m not. I know them, they are like family, but I am not them.

They and their parents and grandparents and on back were subject to theft and discrimination and suppression by, and for, and enforced by a government of, people like me and my parents and grandparents.

It’s not my job to speak for them. It’s not my job to wallow in otiose guilt either. It’s my job to try to amplify their voices, and to think about what I can do to help fix things for them and their future, and to try to do it.

If I say something about Canada’s First Nations, and a member of Canada’s First Nations says “No, you’re wrong,” I can say one thing: “I’m sorry, please tell me what’s right.” And then pass them the microphone. Which they should have had in the first place.

So. The TL;DR: I have many times more reason to claim to be able to speak for First Nations than Jordan Peterson has. But many times zero is still zero.

I have the authority to say just one thing: Shut up, Jordan.

The Pez dispenser theory of male behaviour

Men often make women feel like prey. Many women have pointed this out. We can see what they’re talking about: Return of Kings, assorted fuckboys, catcalling, “nice guys” who think they deserve a fucking medal for being courteous. Or, you know, just a little smile, gorgeous?

The standard explanation of this is packaged in one word: patriarchy. And patriarchy looks like it’s all about power. But there’s a mechanism that is driving much of this behaviour and is probably the main fuel for patriarchy. It’s this: to a heterosexual male, attractive women are – by dint of their attractiveness – essentially Pez dispensers for endorphin and other reward hormones (dopamine, oxytocin, etc.).

You know what I mean when I say Pez dispenser, right? Those little toy candy dispensers with various heads on them. You tilt back the head, out pops a Pez, which is basically sugar with a bit of flavour. Think of that Pez as endorphin and the other hormones. This is how a woman’s attractiveness functions for a man.

I read a study a few years ago that found that men get an endorphin rush just by looking at an attractive woman. I thought, “Of course!” A lot of the discourse about intersexual relations is focused on sex as the necessary ultimate outcome, but we really don’t have to go that far. The reward chain – which, yes, is geared to drive men to get sexual intercourse – starts with the simple fact of looking at an attractive woman. We get a reward just for that. The endorphins increase with a smile or other positive acknowledgement. Every additional bit of access – a touch, an exposed bit of skin, and so on – gives more reward. More Pez. More endorphins.

Endorphins, I have to tell you, are addictive. You want more. And more. And more.

So you do what you can to get some. See pretty woman: Pez. Pretty woman glances at you: Pez. Pretty woman smiles at you: Pez. Pretty woman says hi: Pez. Physical contact: PEZ. And so on.

Endorphins make you feel good. They make you feel like you own your spot in the world. And speaking of owning and controlling, this is another Pez dispenser. Yes. The same reward chain that feeds into and off of sexual interplay also feeds into and off of mastery and control.

So. Guy sees pretty woman. Gets some Pez. Wants some more. Wants a smile out of her. Is already feeling a bit of a bump in endorphins, and has an anticipatory bump too. “Hey, gorgeous! How about a smile?” Or, because he’s feeling those sex-master-hormones firing up, “Hey, sugartits! Nice rack!” Endorphin-drunk and endorphin-greedy.

But then she refuses to give him what he wants. No smile. Maybe a “Go away.” Worse. What then? Fuckin’ shitty Pez dispenser broken empty won’t work!

You like what your computer can do for you, right? You enjoy it, right? And what happens if it’s slow in delivering? Or doesn’t give you what you want? “You useless piece of garbage!” And that’s just a computer. That’s not a full-on endorphinated Pez dispenser.

But guys see women as people, right? They have conversations with them and everything! Yes, of course. And many guys are very well able to remember that this is, above all, a person. They can keep perspective and not get too Pez-greedy. But some guys – far too many, actually – are just too tied up in the Pez. And they will make all sorts of rationalizations. You know how alcoholics can behave? “I can stop any time. I drink it for the flavour – look, this is quality Scotch, not cheap crap from a paper bag.” “Come, we’re having a fun chat, come have a drink with me.” “My friend! You’re a great guy. Got a beer for me? WHAT? Whaddya mean no? You fucking asshole!” What, by the way, is the reward system for alcohol? Endorphins – among other things.

Sex is addictive. Desire is addictive. Being the object of attraction is addictive. Being dumped can be like heroin withdrawal.

So. Attractive women are a source of hormone Pez. Men naturally desire that. Some desire it quite strongly. Some may rationalize it or deny it. Many will feel vulnerable: that thing that gives them the good feeling, the feeling of control over their world, is coming from an outside source that can say no to them. But it’s their sense of power! Yesss! They must have it! They must control the supply!

That endorphin Pez can make you feel like a king. You want to be a king. A king of the Pez. If you’re not feeling kingly enough, you want to do what will return you to your kingdom and given you control over the Pez! Even if it means carpet-bombing the damn place and killing or enslaving the people there because you must have your Pez kingdom.

Obviously this is not a good approach. But even the more subtle approaches can be problematic. Guy stops, blocking other people behind him, to “let the ladies go by,” and fancies himself a magnanimous gentleman for giving them what they don’t need but he really just wants to be the person receiving Pez from them. If someone cuts around him, he might threaten to punch them, or might just make passive-aggressive comments loudly (I’ve seen both happen). So many other “gentlemanly” behaviours are also geared to Pez-dispenser control and maintenance.

When a woman who is normally very friendly and affection just doesn’t feel like popping out an extra piece of Pez at the moment, the guy has abrupt Pez withdrawal and gets upset. Women who aren’t sufficiently attractive are treated like broken dispensers, no good.

If you’re a guy who’s attracted to women, you know this. You know how it feels. You’re lying or in denial if you say you don’t. (I believe the reward pathways are the same for gay men, but with different objects of attraction and different sexual politics, but I don’t feel qualified to comment on it. I really don’t feel qualified to talk about the reward pathways for women. I’m always hoping to learn more.)

And if you’re a guy who’s attracted to women, you do at least some of the above. Yes you do. No matter how hard you try not to treat women like they’re just Pez dispensers, you gotta have you some Pez. And you will get it. In fact, many women are quite pleased to dispense it, in reasonable measure, as long as they have control of themselves and their lives, and as long as they aren’t given the feeling that they’re just seen as Pez dispensers. Why not? People flirt. People smile at each other. You’re not a bad person for enjoying a bit of freely given Pez. You have pretty certainly gotten a bit too greedy at times, and I hope you have learned not to. You will very likely get a bit too greedy again, and you will continue to learn how to get your Pez and how not to. It’s called growing up. You know, that thing you’re supposed to do to be a man.

Because as long as you rely on someone else for your sense of control, you don’t really have control. Even if you maintain control over that external source, you still don’t have control. You’re a man when you can control yourself. And not require constant pops of Pez like a sugar-addicted boy.

Oh, and if you’re a guy reading this, and you’re saying, “Yeah, but women…”, stop there. Are you responsible for yourself? Deal with yourself. Trying to use other people’s behaviour to excuse your misbehavior is what children do.

Politicians and abortion

As a rule, I avoid talking about abortion. People just get upset when they talk about abortion, even if they all agree. Only life experience (yours or a friend’s) is likely to change a person’s position on it. In conversation, people just get more and more angry. But I have some things I want to get off my chest.

To start with: Legally, abortion is a settled issue. The Supreme Court has decided. No matter what individual politicians believe, they will not change that. No leader of a major party is putting outlawing abortion into his platform. What any given member of parliament (or, in the US, congress) believes or wants to happen or says on the stump, it will not change. You are not required to like this, and I’m not going to enter into the rightness or wrongness of legalization of abortion here (see above); I recommend listening to several women who had had or have considered abortions rather than arguing about it online. But regardless of what you would like to be the case, political means will not change it now. Focusing on politicians’ positions is barking up the wrong tree.

What this also means is that making abortion a political issue can produce effects that are not consistent with your overall values. Have a look at the politicians who are vocally opposed to abortion. Some of them have positions that are in many ways the opposite of the teachings of Jesus. “For I was hungry,” Jesus might say to them at the end, “and you called me a parasite, I was thirsty and you sold my water, I was a stranger and you turned me away, I was naked and you arrested me, I was sick and you turned me over to profiteers, I was in prison and you threw away the key.” I will not say that all politicians who are opposed to abortion have these kinds of harmful views, because I know it’s not the case. But if you vote for a party that opposes abortion and against one that believes it should remain legal, in Canada and the US right now, you are voting for a party that has a track record of exactly this kind of behaviour. It may upset you that a politician or party is pro-choice, but in real terms their stance on that issue almost certainly makes no difference. Their stance on issues affecting the poor, the hungry, the displaced, and those who need care and forgiveness, on the other hand, may make very important, real differences.

I do not think it is the right thing to do to vote for those who would do harm, or against those who would do good, on the basis of their stated position on something that is a moot point. Results are what count. Many people who are pro-life recognize that those who are pro-choice are sincerely interested in women’s rights and health, but they object that those people are causing the death of children: their good intentions are, in their view, leading them to cause harm. Well, apply that line of thought here: your best intentions opposing abortion may lead you to do something that causes real harm.

Those who are pro-choice, of course, do not see an early-term, non-viable fetus as a fully developed human, and they are far more concerned for the fully developed human female whose life may, in our society, be derailed by a pregnancy. You may say they are wrong about the fetus not being human, but you are mistaken if you deny that a pregnancy carried to term can have disastrous consequences for women in some positions. And you are naive if you think that the women can just say “No” easily or just use birth control. Talk to more women with a wider variety of experiences in the world. It simply isn’t the case.

Abortion is a decision very few people take lightly. It is traumatic. It is an act of desperation. I am not aware of anyone on either side of the issue who wouldn’t want to see fewer unwanted pregnancies – fewer women who are in a position where abortion would seem like a viable way out. It’s the lines of thought on how to get there that differ. On one side, the view is that women should simply say no, or perhaps use birth control – though many people on that side are opposed to birth control. On the other side, the view is that women should be in better positions to say no if they want to, be in better positions to use birth control. Which, as it happens, is proven to be an excellent way of reducing abortion rates (here’s more on that). I have no hesitation in advocating equality for women and full availability of birth control. Also reproductive health counselling so that young women are fully aware of their contraceptive options (see above).

So. If you are opposed to abortion, and you would like to see fewer abortions, focus on what will produce that result and will not result in harm.Saying something should be the case and feeling morally right about it means little if as a result your actions, or the actions of those you support, are inevitably producing abhorrent results.

Abortion is an issue that lets people on both sides feel very righteously angry. That doesn’t really help anything. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, start by finding women who have had abortions or have considered having abortions. Don’t talk at them. Listen to them. Find out why they were in that position in the first place. Then work on doing what it takes to help other women not to be in that position. Effective things that actually work.

Because you know what they say about good intentions and the road to you-know-where. Good results matter a lot more.