Friday, July 30, 2010

From my Bleeding Heart: The Census and Discrimination

When the Harper government announced its intent to make 54 of the 62 questions on the long census form voluntary, Harper and Tony Clement claimed that it was to protect people’s privacy from invasive questions.  I, like many businesses, academics, politicians, government agencies, and rationally minded citizens, felt that explanation seemed… lacking, which made me suspicious of Harper’s actual motivations.

One month later, while the controversy over the census rages on, the CPC announces that they intend to “review” the government’s hiring policy in regards to affirmative action. 

So Harper has modified the census so that it will be harder to determine if there is racially based discrimination in the job market, then he seeks to remove a program designed to combat the same problem.
The only way privacy makes sense as an explanation for the changes to the census is if it refers to the government’s “right” to enact legislation in private, without “interference” by the opposition, media, and non-white Canadians.


But let’s step away from minorities and look at other parts of the long form census that are being made voluntary.

How much unpaid childcare work do you do?
How much unpaid housework do you do?

Take a deep breath because I know that those questions are SOOOO intrusive that it leaves me hyperventilating while having a stroke, heart attack, and cancer all at once.

These questions are designed to determine how housework and childcare are divided between partners in a marriage.  So it’s looking at how much of these activities are done by women instead of or in addition to working a job.

I bring this up because of Harper’s decision in 2009 to make pay equity for women in government jobs ‘negotiable’ and prevent employees from filing human rights claims for pay equity.  Women make less money than men on average and in many cases less for doing the same job as a man.  Now there’s an amusing Neo-con counter argument that I’ve been hearing lately goes something like, “If women make less for doing the same job as a man, then why aren’t employers getting rid of their male staff to save money?”

However, both of these are true.  But this is too much for Neo-Cons to accept: it must be that one piece of data is wrong; it can’t be that there’s a separate reason that explains both.  In this case it’s because of existing discriminating practices and mindsets in the job market.

The underlying presumption is that one day women are going to go off have kids and then have to devote their time to caring for them.  Therefore, it’s not worth the investment to give raises or promotions to women.  The reverse of this is that men will continue to be the primary source of income to his family and will stay in the workplace longer and be less encumbered by the responsibilities than mommy.

This is sexism, it’s not active, like saying ‘women don’t deserve the right to vote,’ it’s passive and systemic.  Canada, like almost all Western societies, presume that this is what’s going to happen because it is ‘normal,’ but why is it normal, is there something wrong with what’s normal, and is there a better way?

These are questions that Harper isn’t asking, and apparently doesn’t want others to think about either.  He, like his neo-con pals, is apparently invested in reverting Canada to an idealized and not entirely accurate view of the past that not only preserves white male privilege but enhances it.  Harper masks this view by claiming that hard work should be the only factor that determines who should get a job.  If the quality and dedication of one’s efforts was the only thing that decides who gets hired, a raise, or a promotion, then I don’t think that anyone would argue with this goal.

But it’s not.  People have biases and preconceptions, there are factors other than our dedication that determine how hard and how much we can work.  There are things in this world that prevent honest and hard working people from being successful no matter their efforts.

When the cost of maintaining a family is so high that both parents have to work, who is going to have the time to raise their children?

When a person is suffering from a mental illness, but can’t afford to take the time to get help; or can’t afford to pay for their medication to allow them to work in a better paying job; how can you expect them to escape their destitution?

When a minority misses out on getting a job, a loan, or housing because of individual or social bigotry, how will any amount of hard work overcome being denied the opportunity to prove oneself?

As a progressively minded individual, conservatives have accused me of being out of touch with reality, of just not getting it.  If this is the case, why does the scientifically collected facts and data almost always end up showing that there is racism, sexism, ablism, and many other factors other than hard work that inhibit and prevent new immigrants, the poor, women, and minorities from succeeding?

Why is it that the Harper is moving to get rid of virtually all questions on the census that provide information about these topics?  If what he’s saying is true, then he should be able to prove it with the data.  Inversely if he isn’t showing the data and moreover is trying to hide and prevent others from getting the facts, what conclusion should we arrive at?

5 comments:

  1. I never would have thought that our government could be as backwards and socially regressive as the Conservatives are, and that there would not be more of a public outcry about it. Canadians' political apathy, and the incompetence of Ignatieff's Liberals are letting Harper get away with murder.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I always find these discussions sort of interesting.

    Because when a conservative suggests that National Daycare is a liberal effort to raise our children a la "It Takes a Village", we're called alarmist extremists.

    When a liberal suggests that making a government inquisition voluntary is the first step to removing the vote for women, well, they are just rational pragmatists.

    And these discussions always takes place on a sort of philosophical level where the realities of the philosophy can be conveniently ignored.

    Like how having children has negative consequences on business and career aspirations.

    Nobody likes to admit the reality that maternity leave or paternity leave has real consequences. On patients, on clients, on employers, on employees.

    What about the self-employed (like me)?

    I get to pay my taxes, like everyone, but there's no maternity or paternity leave for the self-employed.

    Oh, sure, you can pay into employment insurance, but for the self-employed, that's just an illusion.

    When my children were born - who was going to pay ME to stay home and tend to my children? And beyond that - as I did that - who is going to pay my staff when I'm not in the office billing to generate income to pay wages to employees?

    Or is it ok to discriminate between those who operate businesses and those who are just employed by them?

    Is it just a question of numbers?

    As long as we help MOST Canadians, the fact that equal benefit of the law isn't possible for ALL Canadians makes it ok?

    So. I would LOVE to know how you would take these statitics of who is doing what with their children and turn it into a situation where I have the same rights as a Federal government employee.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's wrong with "it takes a village"? The nuclear family model where the mother is expected to raise children by herself, and is hence isolated at home without adult companionship all day, leads to higher incidences of post-partum depression, among other problems.

    Slinger never suggested that Harper wants to take away women's right to vote. In fact, he specifically said that it's not the kind of sexism where someone says that women shouldn't be able to vote.

    So, because you're not in a position to benefit from a program, no one should get to benefit from it? I'm pretty sure that "employer" is not an analogous ground of discrimination under s.15. It's not a question of numbers, it's a question of who really needs the benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also find it hilarious how unashamed Harvie is of whining "what about MEEEEEEE!?" as his first reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What's wrong with "it takes a village"? My suspicion is that what he's actually worried about is the liberal elite indoctrinating children. To which I say, no one is trying to force your kids to go to daycare, and no one is suggesting eliminating private daycare.

    When a liberal suggests that making a government inquisition voluntary is the first step to removing the vote for women, well, they are just rational pragmatists. As Marissa said, Slinger specifically did NOT say that.

    As far as I know people are upset about the census being cut because it has actual, real negative ramifications for organizations and causes that need the data collected by the census. Cutting the census makes its results less reliable. The good that can be done with reliable statistics outweighs the bad of a minuscule fraction of the population feeling offended by the questions.

    And these discussions always takes place on a sort of philosophical level where the realities of the philosophy can be conveniently ignored. "realities of the philosophy"... isn't that an oxymoron? ;)

    Nobody likes to admit the reality that maternity leave or paternity leave has real consequences. On patients, on clients, on employers, on employees. Actually, I don't believe anyone is denying that.
    What we're saying is that a woman being paid the same as her male co-workers for doing the same job, and not being passed over for promotion because her boss assumes she's going to get pregnant at some point are more important than that boss saving some money.
    What we're saying is that human dignity is more important than profit.

    I get to pay my taxes, like everyone, but there's no maternity or paternity leave for the self-employed That's something that can hopefully be changed. Don't quote me on this, but I believe France does something like that.

    Or is it ok to discriminate between those who operate businesses and those who are just employed by them? So you would have everyone suffer just because you did? You're a real swell guy, Harvie.

    I also find it hilarious how unashamed Harvie is of whining "what about MEEEEEEE!?" as his first reaction Ditto that.

    ReplyDelete