Category Archives: Government intervention

Breast feeding in the pool: yuck yuck yuck


Now, trust me, I believe that a woman should be able to breast feed her baby. If she wants to leave the house at all with a new born who feeds like every waking minute, this is important. But the fact that a woman is complaining to the Human Rights Commission for being kicked out of a public swimming pool for breast feeding is just wrong.

This is not a human rights issue, it is an issue of respect. I don’t want to see someone eating a sandwich in a pool, spitting in a pool, blowing snot into a pool. You can’t feed a toddler a box of milk in a pool. The rules are clear, no eating or drinking aloud. Why should breast feeding be any different? I just can’t understand why this woman couldn’t get out of the pool and breast feed on a chair nearby. 

Advocates argue that breast feeding in a pool does not cause any health issues, sure – but it’s just rude. 

Unfortunately, this story takes away from many women’s legitimate concerns about being discriminated against for breast feeding in a coffee shop or in a mall. And while our culture definitely has a problem with seeing breasts in public, that aren’t perfect, perky and wrapped in sexy lingerie, I really think there is such a thing as going too far. 

This article elicited almost 150 responses from the public echoing this view. Just have some common sense and respect for others. I don’t want baby spit up floating by me, even if it won’t make me sick.  

On the other hand, if women want to argue that they shouldn’t be harassed or discriminated against for breast feeding in public, then were talking about something important. But when this woman takes her grievance public, one that most Canadians would disagree with, it takes away from the real problem.

I spent several months living in Nepal and this is a very conservative culture. Revealing knees or shoulders in public is a no-go. But interestingly enough, breasts are no big deal. Breasts actually share the same Nepali word with milk: duhd. (Dude: ha ha). In Nepal, most women of child bearing age wear shirts(cholahs) that actually un-latch to make it easier to reveal a breast for the purpose of feeding.

Now it would be nice if are culture could accept that breasts actually exist to feed babies, not to be used as male fun pillows.


1 Comment

Filed under Government intervention, Parenting, Sexism

Proposition 8 and the sacred-marriage myth


I think it is truly hilarious that all these religious types are so opposed to Same-Sex Marriage. “Marriage is sacred” they say. How can they even keep a straight face?

They want to deny marriage to a couple of the same sex because they think that it injurs the mighty institution of marriage. I ask them: what about reality tv marriages? What about hollywood 16 minute marriages? What about 7th time marriages? What about marriages for money? Marriages for sex with a woman 40 years younger? So-called starter marriages?

I’m sorry but the whole “marriage as sacred” thing went out the window years ago. Probably around the time 50% of them ended in divorce. But hey, for 50% of us, marriage works. It keeps us happy and healthy a lot of the time. So why deny this to people who share those aspirations. We let random-looking-for-fame dude and I’m-a-“model”-trying-to-break-into-acting girl do it on live television but Judy and Jenny who have been partners for 20 years and would like similar tax breaks as Jack and Laura from next door, not to mention maybe a big fun party with their loved ones, are the ones setting the culture of marriage back. Right!!!

You don’t see the angries standing up to oppose mail-order brides. Wow a green card and sex with a young hot woman who will cook for you till she gets her status should be grounds for marriage, that doesn’t make a mockary out of the “blessed” union between a man and a woman at all. But two people who love and are committed to each other who happen to be of the same gender is really what threatens the collapse of marriage. What a joke.

Let people find their slice of happiness on this planet and don’t judge them so harshly, especially when they are looking for the exact same things as you haters. A sworn commitment to work as a team. Who cares if they originated from the same one.


Filed under Civil Liberties, Equality, Government intervention, Uncategorized

Can someone please tell me why we don’t castrate men who rape our children???

I just don’t get it. Is it because the idea of taking away someone’s precious penis is just too much to bare for men? Is the idea of injecting, basically female birthcontrol, into a man, so horryfing to other men because it may hurt the sex drive, interfere with manliness, or a desire to live, that we cease to take steps to actually do something effective to get rid of child molesters? 

I think it is pretty clear. If you try and fuck children, you have a problem. If you look at pictures of infants and get a hard on, you have a problem, if you abduct and rape them, you have a big fucking problem. But apparently, you can molest them, over 70 times and go to prison for a few years and be back at it. But please, stick to the conditions of your release and stay away from schools because we banned you from doing that. Right.

Have we not learned anything? Sexual gratification is a pretty big motivator and when your brain and penis are hardwired in a fucked up way that makes you perceive a toddler as sexy, even once, maybe you should lose your right to have any sex drive at all. 

Now personally, I would say, remove the whole penis. Cut the whole thing right off. 

But really, a more “humane” answer already exists. Injections. Like every four months and then….bye bye sex drive, protect the children. 

How can we let someone like Danial Todd Gratton troll our playgrounds? Often, the police don’t want these fuckers back out there. But hey, the guy played nice in prison, not too many seven-year-olds in there to tempt him, and then he voluntarily goes to counselling and so he is not considered high risk. Did we forget he molested several children including one more than 70 times? What about those children’s lives? What about the little ten-year-old who he threatened with death this week? How is she going to adjust? And we don’t know what he did to her but I’m sure it wasn’t pretty. 

But hey, at counselling they told Gratton, let’s work to fight against those urges. Sure, then he goes home and online and looks at all the little children out there being abused and gets hot and horny. And these guys are everywhere. They wont tell you where but trust me, in your neighbourhood, maybe in your building, maybe at your work, maybe coaching your kid’s softball team. But as long as we decide to pretend that these guys can get “better”, nothing will change. 

And maybe if we started castrating all the guys we catch, a few others would actually be deterred. It’s one thing to be shamed and go to prison. It’s another to live your life signing it soprano.

Everyday you read a story about another ten men brought down for abusing children, distributing child porn, looking at these vile pictures of poor children being mutilated and tortured and getting off on it. Actually having orgasms when they see a child crying because their little vagina is being ripped open. Let’s get fucking real. These people are a plague on our society. Targeting our children for fucks sake.  Do they really deserve to be allowed to carry around their weapons? Fuck no. 

Let’s not get tough on crime by keeping these guys in prison for a year longer. Let’s really do something about this. And not a voluntary program. What the hell is that.

For child abusers, bring on the mini-guillotine. Off with their heads!!!!

[And now the worst thing is, I get to see the search terms that show up when trolls accidently come to my blog looking for kiddie porn: sadly, their searches will far outnumber those from people looking for news and commentary.]


Filed under Canadian Government, Canadian News, Government intervention, Sexual Violence, Sexual violence against children

Why women aren’t having kids


A recent article/book in the New York Times takes a look at the declining populations in Europe. 

It pretty much goes on to say that embracing the realities of a declining population is inevitable but that the best models for encouraging more children, are those that embrace the equality of women. The Scandanavian countries have the highest birthrates in Europe and also the most family inclusive policies that encourage work/life balance and a women’s role in the workforce, even after she has had children. 

Of course the modern world makes it less appealing for women to have 14 babies. And once an educated woman has been in the work force and living a very independent life, why would she want to be at home only caring for the household and the children? Now some women may want this and most women don’t even have the option but I believe that most of us would like to balance both worlds. And that balance can be achieved through government support for initiatives that make this balance possible and of course the involvement of men as equal partners in the whole endeavor. 

The author goes on to say that the U.S. population is at a high not seen since the 1960s. He says it’s due to the flexibility of the American working environment. I think what he was saying is: “There’s lots of work in the States so it’s easy to get a job even after taking a few years off to be a stay-at-home mom.”

My question is this: where is the population increase in the States? Let me save you the trouble…It’s not in the blue areas. So you can’t say that religion and the rise of fundamentalist Christians are not having a HUGE impact on this population increase.  Just like in most Muslim countries, populations are growing because it is a woman’s duty to bear fruit. Telling people they can’t use birthcontrol and have to produce god’s will is a good population strategy. And the U.S. is definitely voicing those opinions loud and clear.

[In fact, sometimes I think producing a little liberal, feminist army of children to fight against the growing conservative religious front is the best argument I have ever heard for reproduction]

Anyway….my vote is for making a more equal world for men and women so that they can work together, clean together, rear and raise children together and be happy in both roles and bask in the glory of a nice balance. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Demographics, Government intervention, mommy wars, Parenting

Man charged cause son got a bad sunburn???

I think this is insane.

Sure, the dad fucked up. He shouldn’t have left the kid out in the sun for an hour and a half. But how many of us have forgotten to put sun screen on? And I know, I know, he’s just a child and parents must protect, protect, protect. But give the guy a break. Now, his picture is everywhere as the worst dad of the summer (so far). He is in prison and being charged with FIRST degree neglect.

Interestingly, the kids mother, went to the police before she went to the hospital.

I’m sure the hospital sees this all the time. Along with other injuries that accidentally befall toddlers. If the kid had a broken arm from riding a bike that was too big for him, would the dad be charged? If he chocked on a candy bar, that he shouldn’t be eating at this age, would his dad be charged? If dad was playing airplane and dropped the boy accidentily, would he be charged?

It just opens this whole bullshit can of worms. When should someone be charged with neglect and when is it a mistake. An accident. We all make them and I’m sure accidents that hurt our children are the worst of all. Parents have forgotten their children in cars and the kids have died and they didn’t even face first degree neglect charges.

And I’m wondering what kind of a bone the mother had to pick. If she wanted to guarantee that dad wouldn’t get to see his son much anymore, she succeeded.

This story should definitely serve as a reminder to use sun screen. I’ve been avoiding it cause I want a tan, man. But really, it should also make us pissed that the state can interfere at will. Based on nothing but their “outrage at how big the blisters are.” Parents should be able to make a mistake here and there, even a bad one, without becoming a fuck-up poster parent with a video attachment of a poor kid who may hurt pretty badly for the next weeks or so.

At least the kid wont suffer from vitamin d deficiency.

Leave a comment

Filed under Government intervention

Government-enforced medical treatment

The sad, sad story of the little Hamilton boy with leukemia forced to undergo treatment is also a story that raises many issues. The government has decided that neither he nor his parents can make the decision to stop his chemotherapy. I question whether this is a decision made because the doctors strongly believe that this child will actually survive after even more rounds of chemo and the suffering that comes with it, or whether the decision is tainted by racism and the assumption that if you are poor, Native and have previously suffered from addiction, you lose the right to make decisions for your children?

A recent Globe and Mail article about the case, “Under watchful eyes, sick boy endures chemo and a visit form dad, the author lets the readers know: that the child has fetal alcohol syndrome, that the father is a chain smoker, unemployed, with old furniture, that he thinks natural medicine might help his son, that he and the mother of the child who died of cancer suffered from addiction in the past, and that the family is at least part Native.    

I wonder if the government would be intervening if the decision to halt chemo had come from a rich, white, family? 

I think we are always on the bandwagon to preserve life as best we can but when does the suffering become too much? How much suffering should a child have to endure? Will all the suffering be worth it in the end if the child lives? How much pain is too much and whose decision should it be to determine that awful reality? If you made mistakes in the past as a parent, should you lose the right to make decisions about your child’s welfare? 

I do think that these cases need to be decided on an individual basis. We don’t know this family or this child and perhaps his doctors and the Canadian government are making the right decision, but I ask you: what is worse, the child dying from cancer that has ravaged his body and has been resistant to all chemo in the past, or the child continuing to suffer through chemo perhaps during his last months of life because he has a shot at living? Not very easy is it? 


Filed under Government intervention, Parenting, Uncategorized