The news angers me, most days. Hence I return to it morning after morning, a junkie looking for my daily fix of righteous indignation, followed by quiet fuming until placated by orange pekoe. Most days, I get over it. Some days, I take action in pursuit of change. The last few days, I’ve just stayed angry. Really angry.

Have you heard the whole U.S. contraception debacle? Let me break it down for you.

1. Obama introduces a bill to the Senate whereby religiously-based health care providers would have to cover the cost of prescription contraception for women.

2. The Senate’s Republican majority brings a panel to weigh in on the situation. Just look at how qualified this panel is to discuss women’s reproductive rights!

Image Credit: ABC News

Who are they? All-male religious figures, that’s who (scientists and doctors and women need not apply. Especially if women somehow are scientists and doctors… that’s just crazy).

3. The Democrats brought in a law student, Sandra Fluke, to testify about a friend who lost an ovary due to the inability to have prescription birth control covered (she had polycystic ovary syndrome). The Republicans decided she ‘wasn’t qualified‘ and barred her from testifying. Many Democrat women walked out.

4. The bill was narrowly defeated (51-48). Insurers remain the right to refuse to cover contraception.

The Icing On the Cake: Republican radio personality pundit idiot moron Rush Limbaugh blasts Fluke on his show (don’t read these quotes if you don’t want to turn purple and fume). His words:

“What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.“

The next day (because clearly that wasn’t enough), he spouted, “so Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”

Pardon me while I go vomit in my teacup. Again.

Thanks CPB!

On a kind of sad and hilarious note, Rachel Maddow pointed out that Limbaugh probably doesn’t actually understand what birth control is, because his remarks indicate that he thinks a woman needs to take a birth control pill to avoid pregnancy after every (heterosexual) romp. Watch her do her thang here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

So what does all this mean? There’s good news, and there’s bad news.

The Good News: Limbaugh might actually have screwed himself over this time. He’s lost advertisers and actually had to issue an ‘apology’, which is a rarity for him. The average person will be outraged by his asinine and offensive remarks, and it may spark some healthy debate around the issue and perhaps make a few folks do something about it.

The Bad News. I originally wanted to argue that Limbaugh’s words constituted hate speech, and that he could be taken down on this basis, but unfortunately the structure of the legal system exempts what he’s done from formal consideration as hate speech (thanks Em. for being my consult on this). To qualify as hate speech, it must be both hateful and harmful. It is definitely hateful, but is it harmful? A court likely wouldn’t see it at such, given that his listenership isn’t wide enough and one would have to make the case that his words were against women in general rather than one specific woman.

However, I do think what he said is harmful as well as hateful. What’s the danger in his rant? The danger is that a few sicko whacked out dudes will hear his words and feel validated. They won’t understand that he is exaggerating for the effect of controversy and ratings. They wont realize that his outrageous statements are mostly an act designed to inflame. They will simply feel reinforced in their misguided beliefs about how contraception is for ‘slutty’ women only, and that it’s okay to say such terrible things about women (or people, for that matter). This is why as responsible citizens we need to demand that Limbaugh and people like him be pulled from public forum, no matter how well their controversy generates ratings. It’s words like his, and people like him, that make people with seriously messed up views think that it is okay to retain to those views… and to act on them, with disastrous consequences.

First, a Valentine’s Day present for you (and me). CPB is joining us as our in-house illustrator. Please let the joyous gyrating begin. CPB is a lovely, talented individual who is capable of arranging lines in a fashion more pleasing than randomness (and we are lucky to have her).

So, let’s proceed to the meat of this fleshy red day, shall we?

What is Occupy Valentine’s Day? It has nothing to do with the formal Occupy, and there will be no delicious chocolate occu-pies, and definitely no  recitations of occu-pi to the 137th decimal place.

On Occupy Valentine’s Day, it’s about bringing down the man. Specifically, this man:

OV-Day (which to me seems an awkward combination of ‘Ovechkin” and ‘Venereal Disease’) was started by Samhita Mukhopadhyay, who has a track record of being fantastic. She, and the OV-Day supporters, bring their ire for two reasons in particular.

1. Valentine’s Day purports to celebrate love, but only places value on certain kinds of relationships. Those that are

• committed
• heterosexual
• exclusive
• permanent-leaning

Honestly, if you can’t see the logical problems in there already, then your very presence is facepalm inducing. The quick logic of it is that V-day’s main value is love, but there is nothing in definitions of what love is or means between people that includes any of those listed caveats (especially buying shit). If you aren’t yet convinced that V-day is a bit of a crock, then lets see what the facts say.

• The average Canadian male spends $138 on a V-day gift. The average Spanish man spends $239.
• Young adult couples are more likely to break up on or around V-day than other times of the year.
• Approximately 1 billion greeting cards are sent out each V-day (I shudder to think at the trees that died so some bozo could put ‘You are my honeybear’ on a piece of paper).
• The overwhelming response by men, when asked about their motives for gift-giving, was obligation
• Scientists report the holiday as “fostering materialism, togetherness, and gender roles.” Take that however you will.

I think that about settles it for me. And I’m not alone. There is a long history of anti-consumerism and alternative consumerism rallying around this day. Ultimately, as the scientists say, it is merely a day “worthy of study due to the unique consumption, gift/card exchange, grooming, dating, and romance-based consumer behaviors associated with this holiday.”

Lets make it more than that. Lets make it about love, like it ought to be, and show someone that you care (which hopefully you do the other 364 days a year as well). But not with stuff, and by golly, not with a paper card. Trees need their lives more than your shnookums needs your throwaway chicken-scratch love notes.

So what will you do/did you do for V-day or OV-Day? Did you spend a pile of money and then break up with your sweetie, or did you take Mukhopahyay’s suggestion and “Have a sexy conversation by candlelight with your partner about structural inequity?”. I sure hope it was the latter.

You’ve heard of theism, atheism, polytheism, monotheism, whatevertheism. But have you heard about scientism? It’s time to learn a few things about it, because the chances are pretty high that if you live in the Western world and subscribe to principles of logic, you might subscribe to it. I know I did.

So, what the heck is scientism?

Simply put, it is the view that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. All knowledge is that which can be measured and counted. All that which we know can be tested by the scientific method.

Sounds decent, right?

I thought so too, until on closer inspection it is revealed… not so much.

Scientism is actually self-refuting.

How, exactly?

I mean, after all, it seems rational and reasonable that the only things that are real are that which can be measured, observed, counted. The supernatural, which cannot be observed scientifically, is not real. And there are some great logical claims to support that.

The inherent problem with scientism is the claim of scientism itself. After all, the claim that all knowledge can only be acquired by science isn’t a scientific claim. It is self-refuting.

The idea that everything can be measured isn’t a claim that can be tested scientifically. Science presupposes that that there is an objective physical world, and the things in it can be explained through the use of human intellect. To argue for these presuppositions using science is circular.

What the heck should we do, then? Turn to religion, or spirituality? Well, while scientific has one logical problem, appealing the unprovable and supernatural has many, many more.

We turn to philosophy. Rational inquiry doesn’t depend on science, but science is a form of rational inquiry. After all, there is a reason that the first scientists were called natural philosophers. There’s a reason that those who earn a PhD are awarded a doctor of philosophy. The thinking of the natural philosopher is something we need to bring back, and give some weight to. No, I’m not talking about pot-smoking hippies. There’s something to be said for using logical deduction rather than waiting for funded studies to prove things we already know.

(this post featuring hyperboleandahalf for all sorts of awesome!)

_____________

Cod plz!

by Mojofooka

So a federal advisory panel urges the lives of 70 000 grey seals off the east coast of Canada to be culled. Why, you ask?

The Basic Gist of It

1. Humans want fish
2. Humans fish for fish
3. Humans want more fish
4. Humans develop SUPER EFFECTIVE technology and techniques to fish faster for more fish
5. Humans get lots of fish
6. Humans find there is not much fish left
7. THEREFORE: the appropriate response is to kill off the majority of the nearby grey seal population

…there is a serious logic disconnect along the way.

Just to clarify, the fish in question are cod. Anyways, as of today, the commercial cod fishing industry on Canada’s east coast has been inactive for over 17 years. I do credit humans for suspending commercial cod fishing in 1993, because at least it gives the indication that humans were acknowledged as somewhat relevant to the tremendously low cod populations. Despite this lull in human fishing activities, however, cod populations are now at a record low.

The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) desperately wanted to explain the lack of cod population recovery to find some basis for an idea to kick-start the population growth/revive the cod fishing industry. This advisory council then brilliantly noted that 1. grey seals eat cod, and 2. the local grey seal population had increased 30-fold since the 1960s. Armed with these powerful realizations, the FRCC concluded that the party at fault therefore must have been the grey seals, and proceeded to suggest that killing 70 000 of the aforementioned seals would liberate the cod from its population growth inhibitions. In fact, an additional bonus was even given: it would be a superbly interesting large-scale experiment to perform.

Wow. So that’s all it takes to make a rampant massacre sound like a great idea.

Does the FRCC assume that the only influential factor on cod population is predation? And that only one of its predators is responsible? The assumption isn’t directly stated, but it certainly seems implied when the FRCC’s proposition only targets one predator – the grey seal. But how about other considerations? Perhaps with cod populations depleted, their prey had much fewer hungry cod chasing them… so could it be possible that other hungry species, formerly outcompeted by the massive cod populations, are now able to flourish off the cod’s prey? The now-flourishing species could be consuming much of the cod’s precious food, thus impeding cod populations from rebounding even after humans suspended commercial fishing. Or how about the recorded fact that prior to overfishing, large populations of both grey seals and cod existed simultaneously? Imagine that. If seals and cod are actually able to coexist, it’s likely that the grey seals aren’t as much of a barrier to cod population growth as they are accused of being. Oh, and just as a reminder, seals and humans definitely aren’t the only cod-consuming species.

Really though, killing 70 000 seals to check if it will make cod populations skyrocket… Well then, I guess I’m off to slaughter the majority of Canadian bears, just in case they’re responsible for keeping salmon from having lots of babies! Simply brilliant. Let me impart some wisdom that my statistics teacher has permanently impressed into my mind: Correlation does not equal causation. Even if cod populations did shoot up again after wiping out over two-thirds of the grey seal population, it would be neigh impossible to know that the sole factor was predation from grey seals. In marine ecology, there is no “food chain” – it is in fact called a “food web” because of the staggering complexity of who-eats-who, and in all honesty, the population boom of the grey seals living off the east coast of Canada may really have little relevance to cod. Considering that the FRCC’s suggested bloodbath/experiment isn’t being performed in a controlled environment, there are way too many confounding variables for this experiment in the deep blue sea.

Possibly the most charming part the suggestion from the FRCC to cull 70 000 grey seals is that it was made in a report titled “ Towards Recovered and Sustainable Groundfish Fisheries in Eastern Canada”. Apparently sustainable fisheries only need to concern themselves with the sustainability of species sold in the supermarket.

Well, there’s probably isn’t a realistically accessible button to suddenly make cod populations go bursting forth in glorious fit of reproduction… but even if there was, I’d say killing grey seals isn’t it.

Let’s up the controversy ante around here. This piece of mine was originally published in this paper. So, what the hell is it about Israel that gets everyone in a tizzy?

When it comes to international issues, most people don’t take notice until the problem has a direct impact on their lives. Whether it’s poverty, environmental damage or war, people hesitate to get involved until there is an immediate and personal reason to do so. Though this rule of thumb generally holds true, it flies right out the window with the issue of Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories.

The Western obsession with this conflict is peculiar, evident from the continuous stream of propaganda from both sides found in the media. A look at university campuses across Canada reveals a range of anti and pro-Israel groups active at any given time. Honest reporting and analysis has become challenging to find, and as the issue becomes more polarized, even something as simple as a research partnership between a Canadian university and an Israeli one is enough to spark fierce, embittered debate.

Many Canadians voice strong opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, ask these same people about the uprising in Syria, the Colombian Armed Conflict, or the insurgency in Yemen, and the conviction of their words falls flat. Where are the speakers and groups rallying for or against the issue of al-Shabaab banning aid organizations in famine stricken Somalia? What about the estimated 500, 000 people currently detained in China without trial? How many of the people who will attend pro or anti-Israel campus demonstrations in March attended a Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada event to acknowledge the injustices done by the Canadian government to Aboriginal and First Nations peoples? Even given the relevance and urgency of this last issue, my guess is not many.

Though neither the actions of either side in the Israel-Palestine conflict should be condoned, a little perspective is needed. It is one mess among many, yet receives the bulk of the attention.

There are a host of potential reasons for this, each as controversial as the issue itself. Perhaps governments are trying to appease wealthy oil-bearing Arab countries, or conversely, to appease the wealthy Jewish electorate. Perhaps it’s anti-Islamism or anti-Semitism. Perhaps it is because Israel is a developed country, and we of the developed world wish to make an example of them. Yet most Canadians would be shocked and appalled by the living conditions and rights offenses on native reservations in our own country.

Whatever the reason, as international citizens, we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by a single issue. If a small fraction of the passion and attention placed on Israel was focused on other conflicts, the resources might be available to solve them more quickly and effectively. Furthermore, before pointing the finger at others, it may be that we should take a hard look at the issues within our own country.

For those who believe that Israel-Palestine should dominate our attention, I ask this of you: Put an end to the proselytizing from afar. Get on a plane and go speak to Israelis and Palestinians. Cross the wall yourself. Get involved with local non-profit groups who are trying to build bridges between divided peoples. People working diligently and effectively towards peace are not hard to find.

When I stood at the wall, I was humbled. I lost my convictions about the conflict, who was the aggressor and who was the victim. I realized that the information I had been receiving in Canada was deeply polarized, further aggravated by the similarly ill-informed opinions of those around me.

Whether or not we have a duty to actively participate in ending international conflict is debatable. What is clear is that as international citizens, we are obliged to not make things worse. If we intend to comment on international conflicts, we must be objective and fair and accord all of the conflicts worldwide the attention they deserve. Pontificating on one issue from here—out of context and thousands of kilometers away—does more harm than good.

If we want to truly be of use, we should get educated and do something about the issues we are passionate about.

________________________________

Why the Italian seismologists should be burned at the stake

by emcee

“Do or do not.  There is no try.”  In a famous scene from the beloved Star Wars series, Yoda utters these wise words to an exhausted Luke who is trying, unsuccessfully, to complete a seemingly impossible task.  You’re probably wondering how the philosophy of Star Wars has anything to do with Italian seismologists.  My answer is patience, young padawan.  All will be revealed.

Yoda’s adage can be summed up by the all-or-nothing attitude; either one sets out knowing one WILL succeed, or one should not attempt at all.  This wisdom can be directly applied to the situation of those seismologists you so thoughtfully have been concerned about.  Basically, in 2009 a hapless posse of six scientists and one government official discovered that an earthquake of potentially epic proportions would hit the region of L’Aquila, Italy, but they decided not to adequately relay the news of quite how dangerous it might be to the good citizens of L’Aquila.   As a result, over 300 people died and quite a few more were injured.  Understandably, those left standing were more than a little peeved at the lack of heads-up given, and the proverbial finger-pointing has resulted in those in the know before the quake being charged with manslaughter (reasoning: the onus was on the motley crew to amply characterize and communicate the risks of the quake; they failed spectacularly to do so; they therefore are slaughterers of innocents).

I whole-heartedly agree; quite obviously, their inability to predict with crystalline certainty the potential damage of the quakes is a sin so atrocious, they deserve to burn in hell.  Reasons as follows:

1)      Science has no bounds, therefore scientists are gods and no earthly feat is beyond them.  This clearly means that the seismologists, using their perfect, fool-proof scientific methods, should have realized all the who, what, when’s, where’s, and how’s of the earthquakes down to a nano-unit of precision.  Just look at our local weather-news casters – every single day, they manage to predict if it will rain or shine with stunning accuracy; not once have any of us been caught out in a thunderstorm our galoshes because of an incorrect prediction.  Whereas the seismologists had a few hundred years to take a breather since the last L’Aquila earthquake, and they STILL managed to botch up the timing of this one.

I mean, it’s not like they said, “Our ability to predict earthquake hazards is, frankly, lousy,” or anything.

2)      “Do or do not.  There is no try.”  Going back to the Yoda clause, one should never even dream of attempting anything if one does not know one is absolutely right.  In the seismologists’ case, they faced two options.  The first is that they could have run around town screaming “The sky is falling!”, thereby causing widespread mayhem and a Noah’s Ark evacuation of L’Aquila, and the whole dilemma could have been averted (never mind the other, negligible issues this would have caused). Or, they could have avoided entering such a risky occupation in the first place, where one bad move can result in being labeled a murderer of innocents.  Of course, this might result in a major shortage of scientists who just might save numerous lives with their deeds (and a general shortage of people in ANY occupation in which job security is the slightest bit dicey) but hey, it’s a free world.

I hope Yoda’s example has sufficiently illustrated the guilt of these butchers.  Because, dammit, EVERYONE should live by the words of a furry, sci-fi puppet-dwarf – especially when these words are so undeniably applicable in real life.

I invite all of you – you who don’t know the meaning of “try” but only “do” – to throw the first stone.

Earthquakes – Who’s at fault?

by Kitch

A group of Italian experts, including scientists and one former government official, recently went on trial for manslaughter for ‘not warning the public aggressively enough’ about an upcoming earthquake that ended up killing more than 300 people. Read about it here.

One of the most characteristic features of earthquakes is that they’re random and unpredictable. Have you ever heard of an earthquake that’s been predicted accurately, with enough warning time to evacuate the area? Probably not, because there hasn’t been one.

We can safely say that along tectonic boundaries an earthquake will probably happen, at some point, somewhere along that boundary. We can’t really say much more than that because scientists don’t know enough about the Earth’s tectonic processes.

So, does it really make sense to charge scientists with manslaughter for failing to warn the public against something unpredictable? To hold someone at fault (pun intended) for not predicting an earthquake is ridiculous – no one knows how to do it right! Admittedly, the primary issue that the experts are on trial for is not just failing to predict the earthquake, but also failing to communicate the risk with the public. Two of the experts on trial had told the public that there was little to no risk of a large quake happening, which apparently lulled the residents of the area into a false sense of security so they didn’t evacuate. Really, is this what they’re on trial for?

Use your head.

If you choose to live in an area that’s seismically active and well known for earthquake activity, you should know the risks of living there. You should also know that earthquakes are pretty much impossible to predict, and there is always a risk that one could happen. How can the scientists be blamed for failing to warn them if they should already be aware of the danger they put themselves in by living in that area? If we can criminally charge someone for not predicting this earthquake, leading to 300+ deaths, who do we hold responsible for the 2011 Japan earthquake that caused a massive tsunami? How about the 2010 earthquake in Haiti? Both of those quakes caused much more damage and thousands more fatalities than this one, but no one is being blamed for not predicting these, or ‘not warning the public aggressively enough’.

Who is to blame for the 300 000+ deaths and destruction caused by the 2010 Haiti earthquake?

That’s because shit happens. It’s ridiculous to hold someone responsible for failing to warn people against something that’s unpredictable. Sometimes things are out of our control. Instead of trying to blame someone for it, just deal with it.

Thank god for asterisks

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has been making headlines lately, as its first hearing in the House happened recently. While I am not American, the act raises some interesting ideas for debate, and got me thinking about censorship in general, and how far freedom of speech should go.

Feel free to check out the SOPA hearing on your own,  but from what I’ve gleaned through a variety of sources, there is an understandable concern about how vague the act is, and the lack of limits on power over Internet usage and content that the act could grant – including strict fines and legal penalties for the average user who makes use of copyright material (wait, I shouldn’t have included any pictures in this post? Uh oh).

Censorship in the hands of a governing body is nothing new. It could be proposed that the bible was originally kept in Latin to prevent the common man from reading it  – or simply that many people couldn’t read, and were thereby censored by what their clergy chose to teach them. The Nazis hosted book burnings, with the most famous pictured below on May 10, 1933. Most of us are aware of more recent regimes, such as the strict censorship controls of the Chinese government.

Closer to home, the CRTC in Canada and the FCC in the US are responsible for regulating traditional media content and to deem it appropriate (or not) for their respective publics – for our safety, of course. So far, the Internet has been a fickle beast to tame, and has eluded the control of such governing bodies – though it’s a complicated question (how much power do they have?).

Because that’s what censorship comes down to – the control of the public through the control of information. What people know affects what they’ll buy, whom they’ll vote for, and the decisions they make in their lives. While freedom of speech is lauded, there is the continual struggle of what is right, who is wrong, and what you’re saying that will offend me and corrupt my children of course.

My corrupted, offended child.

The Internet has provided a medium unlike any before (though I’m sure the printing press was pretty amazing) to rapidly allow the dissemination of ideas and opinions to a massive population – no matter what those ideas might be. But that is the beauty and horror of true free speech.

7 Words You Can’t Say on Television by George Carlin

And that is where things get muddled – is it free speech if there is any form of censorship? For example, does a homophobe have the same right to discuss their opinion of homosexuality as an individual within the LGBT cohort? If not, why? It is that divide – the head butting of what is right and wrong in the clutch of moral and human rights issues – that creates strife. Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying – I don’t think they’re right.  But the same reason for silencing them (homophobes, supremacists, radicals etc.) can and has been used against many of the things we embrace and support. How long ago did the church censure scientists? Because they’re wrong isn’t a strong enough argument to justify silencing someone – because both sides are saying it.

Some might say I like to stir the shit. I want to try and see the side I don’t believe in or support – to understand why people support it. Most of all, if I want to be allowed to say whatever I want, when I want – then that right has to be granted to everyone else too. Even if I don’t like what is being said. Because freedom of speech can’t be about what is right or wrong – we need to hear both to be able to make a decision ourselves.

There is a new glass ceiling for women in science, and it isn’t what you would expect. This is a reprint of a piece of mine originally published in the Dal gazette, found here (without the cartoons or the emphasis, naturally).

_____

In today’s first grade classrooms, an impromptu survey of “What do you want to be when you grow up?” yields answers ranging from marine biologist, to hairdresser, to firefighter.  If you asked the students if they want to earn a PhD in science, you would likely receive a chorus of blank stares.

This is not surprising; after all, only one (or less) student in a given Canadian elementary school is likely to earn a PhD in natural science or engineering (NSE). That one will almost certainly be a boy.

The National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) is Canada’s leading body for the funding and advancement of scientific research. Their recent report on the state of women in science reveals some troubling trends. Although the male/female ratio of Grade 12 and undergraduate students enrolled in NSE classes is roughly the same, only 37 per cent of Canada’s NSE undergrads and master’s students are women. Beyond this point, the drop is even sharper, with only a small percentage of female NSE doctoral or post-doctoral researchers.

Women are not underrepresented in university systems, but they are starkly absent in NSE professions and faculty positions. Women comprise only 20 per cent of the NSE labour force, although they earn 40 per cent of bachelor’s degrees in the field. Men heavily occupy management positions, whereas women tend to drift to other fields, such as social science and education.

This problem is even evident in universities, which often enforce liberal and equitable hiring policies. Of NSE faculty, only 19% are women, and they are mostly in the lower professorial ranks. As the report summarizes, “gender equality remains a distant possibility.”

The new glass ceiling is not inequitable hiring. In fact, women are hired preferentially over men to improve demographic diversity in many departments. The trouble is the lack of female applicants. This new glass ceiling is something more insidious than traditional sexism. It is a force that makes women feel they do not want, or are not able, to pursue NSE professions.

Programs to advance the role of women in science have been in place for more than a decade, and are experiencing success given the dramatic increases in female participation in these fields since the 1970s. At present levels of growth, though, it will be a great many more decades before we reach parity. Research has shown that whatever is causing this difference, it isn’t innate, as girls’ and boys’ abilities are very similar.

Many theories have been tossed about to explain the lack of women in NSE: stereotypes and negative opinions of women in “masculine” positions, boys having a more positive attitude towards science, lack of female role models in NSE, and conflicts between career and family, just to name a few. The vast body of literature on the issue, which even has an entire academic journal dedicated to it, is inconclusive.

The paradigms of sexism are changing, at least in academia. It is no longer the boys trying to keep the girls out of their club, but the girls who have little desire to come in. Women who choose NSE careers report higher levels of stress and perfectionism, and feel greater pressure to outperform their male peers. Perhaps the gender inequality in NSE is not enforced by men with power, but a product of wider and systemic flawed thinking about gender roles.

To those who would imply that sexism is a thing of the past, given equitable hiring practices, these recent results show that this is not the case. In Canada, women are able to do almost anything they want. The problem lies in a social structure that conditions what men and women want to be, right from the first grade. It is also in the nature of these professions themselves, which clearly do not accommodate what women want.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, there are still strong gender-based drivers behind career paths. The low presence of men in non-traditional professions, like nursing or public administration, attests to this. We need to do more than have equitable hiring practices and instead look carefully and critically at a social system that forces us to divide our career aspirations by gender in the first place.

____

What do you think are the reasons behind this? Also, did anyone else notice Canada’s new Action Plan ad that shows shows only non-traditional gender roles in professions, like female construction workers and male nurses? Seems (pleasantly) deliberate to me!