I found an interesting website which listed some worldwide spring festivals and events which happen annually, usually without fail. As a Montreal Canadiens fan living in enemy territory his entire life I can’t help but think that the list is incomplete.
That’s me, the smart one in the middle. How can you tell I am the smart one? Well, just look at what I am wearing…
Yes Leaf fans, I am talking about the annual event where you all start with that sense of renewed hope only to have those hopes predictably dashed – the Stanley Cup playoffs.
I often wonder aloud sometimes why Leaf fans put themselves through such torture. They remind me of Bill Murray’s character in the movie Groundhog Day. They seem destined to relive the same sequence of events again… and again… and again.
At least in the movie Murray’s character finds a way to break the cycle of reliving the same day over and over. The Leafs and their fans have lived the same nightmare since… yes, 1967.
I am told this year will be different – “this is our year”. This is the year that the Leafs will slay the dragon – aka the Boston Bruins – and get over that proverbial hump. This is the year that the regular season offensive juggernaut known as Auston Matthews will finally show he is a primetime player. This is the year that the Leafs goalies will actually steal games rather than cough them up. This is the year… blah, blah, blah.
I hear from Leaf fans who tell me all the time that the Habs have suffered through 30 years of a drought without a Stanley Cup. To that I say, they are absolutely correct. I have become frustrated with my team’s playoff futility but then there are those 24 Cups – 10 in my lifetime – to hang my hat upon. Also, I am at least comfortable in the knowledge that the Canadiens have reached the Cup final as recently as 2021 and for what it is worth are the last Canadian team to hoist Lord Stanley’s mug.
The two guys in the photo above with me (my two older – but by their choice in favourite hockey teams apparently not wiser – brothers) were ages three and five when their beloved Buds last even made a Cup final (yes, I know they defeated the Canadiens to win the Cup that year but being only 18 months old at the time the pain was not even memorable and honestly any sorrow has been long erased by the ten Cups the Habs have won over my lifetime – but I digress).
Now, I may be fuzzy on the laws in Ontario over 50 years ago but I am sure neither of my two brothers could even legally enjoy a celebratory beer the last time their team was the toast of the NHL. No offence, but as a Habs fan just give me a paper bag to hide my face in public should it ever come to pass that my team is the laughingstock of the NHL as the Leafs have become.
Teams in other sports have shaken the label of loveable losers. The Red Sox, Cubs and White Sox in baseball. The Nuggets in the NBA. Even my Broncos (on back-to-back occasions I might add) passed on the NFL torch of perennial bridesmaids to the Buffalo Bills.
The Leafs stand alone as the NHL team with the longest record of championship futility. Every Canadian team, barring the Winnipeg Jets (to be fair to the Jets, they weren’t even eligible for a Cup until the WHA merged with the NHL in 1979. Also, the Jets left Winnipeg in 1999 and did return until 2011 – yet again, I digress) have at least been as far as a Cup final, if not won it all, since the Leafs last finals appearance in 1967.
Here are the cold, hard, heartbreaking numbers for the Leafs and their fans relative to their Canadian cousins regarding Cups and final appearances since 1967:
Montreal: 12 Final appearances; 10 Cups
Edmonton: 6 Final appearances; 5 Cups
Calgary: 3 Final appearances; 1 Cup
Vancouver: 3 Final appearances
Ottawa: 1 Final appearance
Winnipeg and Toronto: doughnuts
(note, the former Quebec Nordiques franchise has also won 3 Stanley Cups albeit as the Colorado Avalanche)
What would add real insult to injury for Leaf fans would be if the Winnipeg Jets reached a Cup final, or God forbid, actually won the Holy Grail.
By the way, who have I picked to be the team left standing at the end this year? The Winnipeg Jets.
When did we become so divided? Every politician seems to be falling over each other to engage in support for one group or another. Colour me skeptical but I find myself saying “follow the money” when trying to sort out the reason why our group identity has taken precedence over our individual identity.
Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” (MLK “I have a dream” speech text). Today, I think we are moving further away from the dream MLK once had for his nation and I believe by extension, the entire free world.
Canada often mimics its neighbour to the south when it comes to many social discussions and even laws. Yes, I know there are many differences, like gun and abortion laws but the fundamental beliefs of a democratic society – equality, freedom and liberty – are mirrored in both nations. It has become apparent that Canada has taken a troubling turn at not upholding these core tenets.
Often, the narrative being put forward by media and politicians in Canada is that it is the USA and its government which is a threat to democracy with some of their actions and policies. Quite the contrary to this narrative, I believe that there are countless examples of why Canadians should be alarmed at how quickly we have moved in the wrong direction and there has been a slow erosion of those three principles of a social democratic system.
The individual or the collective
I am a big believer that what makes every individual unique is their own story and experiences. The colour of our skin, our gender, our religious beliefs – even our physical characteristics – are not usually unique. For example, there are approximately two billion Muslims on the planet and a slightly higher number of Christians. Being either Muslim or Christian does not make us unique in any sense. Find me a religion which has one member and I will give in on the uniqueness factor. The same can be said of gender (just two genders people, don’t care what the criminal Dr. John Money said back in the 1960s) or race.
Despite the irrefutable fact that our uniqueness is not dictated by things like race, religion or gender we are using those very traits to divide all of us into pseudo-tribes. Fancy academic terms like “intersectionality” are used to determine the level of victim-hood which should be assigned to each person. Should you be a black/trans/handicapped person you have hit the jackpot in the oppression Olympics. Conversely, if you an able-bodied white/male/heterosexual you are a member of the highest order of oppressors.
Think about the illogical way in which academics like Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo have framed the debate on a person’s so-called “privilege”. Using the theory of intersectionality employed by “progressives” to determine a person’s societal privilege as an example, Lebron James and his children are less privileged than a dirt poor white family from the Appalachia region in the United States.
This way of thinking has polluted our political discourse so that absolutely everything must be looked at through a lens of gender, race, religion, etc. etc. The problem with this thinking is that more and more categories seem to be added to the mix every day. How many groups are we going to consider as part of the discussion before it distorts the discussion on most issues so much that we never really address the core problems?
Canada’s descent
So earlier I took the position that Canada has numerous relatively recent examples of why we are headed down a dark road as it relates to basic fundamental rights. Now, rather than looking at the individual we look at the collective. Does this sound like it has any similarities with an existing political system (hint, it’s the one responsible for close to 100 million deaths of citizens under that system in various countries during the 20th century)?
The collective has trumped the individual in almost every political discussion. Think I am exaggerating? All one needs to do is look at some of the measures taken by our federal government during the COVID “crisis”. Phrases like “we are in this together” hid the fact that mandates and rules impacted some individuals far more than others. For example, government workers and restaurant workers clearly were not in “this” together. Most (if not all) government workers kept getting a pay cheque (with full benefits) whether they were working or not. The hospitality workers were sent home given a paltry $2,000 a month from the government and told they should be grateful. Really?
Think of our education system. It essentially became a shell of what it was before COVID. We shut down schools and our children were forced into government mandated isolation. This was all done under the same banner of “we’re all in this together”. The problem is that we weren’t, and it is not even a debate. Children, who were shown to be the least vulnerable group to be impacted by COVID were cut off from their peer group and were impacted from a mental health standpoint in more ways than they ever would have been from COVID. (watch this exchange on The View between Dr. Phil and the hosts who seem to have bought into this nonsense Dr. Phil spitting facts on The View)
There are far more examples of the politics by identity politics approach. I could go on all day how what I say as a dangerous trend has permeated our political system. The question is why is this happening?
I believe this is all about money and also playing on the ignorance of the typical voter. Call me skeptical but I believe generally a politician values the desire to be re-elected rather than the importance of doing what is in the best interest of citizens. Politicians achieve the former by appealing to specific groups or identities. You hear all the time about how well a politician is polling among groups like women, ethnic voters, gays, etc. The same politicians will sacrifice what is truly right to curry favour with a voting block that can get them re-elected.
How is this about money you may ask? Well, simply put, federal politicians can collect a pension after two terms in office. The federal Liberals actually quietly moved the 2025 fall election date later so that MPs would be eligible to collect their pension. Had the original date remained, defeated MPs who had not reached the date to be eligible to collect a pension would have left office with nothing if they were defeated. The Liberals framed this as being respectful of the Indian community as the original date fell withing the celebration of Diwali. How gracious of the Trudeau government to do this for the Indian community, right? Well, not really. The government could have moved the date for the election prior to Diwali. However, that would mean that a Liberal government which is on the verge of being decimated would have more than a handful of members who would not reach eligibility for a federal pension.
The other part of the money equation is the industry which has developed around identity politics. How many universities now have departments that are either directly or indirectly tied to Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI)? How many companies have officers or sometimes whole departments devoted to DEI? Who hasn’t encountered mandatory corporate training for all employees in the area of DEI? By some estimates DEI is a $9 billion industry in the USA and will grow to about $15 billion by 2026. I won’t get into a lengthy debate but there is sufficient evidence to show this is not money well spent (of course, unless you are collecting a pay cheque as part of a DEI initiative or department).
I also mentioned the ignorance of the voter as part of this equation. I know in Australia there is a system in place to increase voter turnout. Eligible voters who do not cast a ballot in an election can be fined. Sounds great in principle, right? However, given the lack of awareness and an unwillingness to seek out information by what I would argue is the majority of voters I would say this only compounds the problem. Politicians pander to the lowest common denominator among voters, I know it will never become law but I almost would like to see a basic civics test as part of the voting process. This would weed out the low hanging fruit among voters who are continually preyed upon by politicians.
I guess this is my way of saying that people did actually die for our right to vote. Immigrants often come to Canada from countries where selecting your government through a democratic process is a pipe dream. The least we can do is treat the process with the respect it deserves. Stay informed, be a political free agent and please don’t throw your vote away.
Anyone who is even a casual follower of sports is probably aware of the excitement surrounding NCAA women’s basketball and more specifically the play of Iowa Hawkeye star player Caitlin Clark. The reigning NCAA Division I player of the year and scoring champion is putting up numbers that are truly jaw-dropping and an inspiration to all young players but especially to young girls.
Why did I add the last part of the previous statement? Well, because she is a female and she was once a girl with ambitions to be the star she has become. When I think of Terry Fox, I think of a young man who inspired not only a nation but the world. However, more importantly, it can never be argued that his greatest and most important influence was on those who shared a similar challenge to his, namely not being able-bodied (note, I am not sure what the correct term is anymore for a person with a physical disability, so please don’t cancel me if I used the politically improper term. I hope you recognize sarcasm?).
Back to Caitlin Clark and the topic of this post. Clark deserves all the accolades which are showered upon her. The fame, the endorsements the press coverage – all are well-deserved. However, as a society, why do we seem to need to constantly step out of our figurative (and at times literal) lanes as it pertains to female athletes? When a female athlete like Clark – or tennis star Serena Williams or retired UFC legend Amanda Nunes or LPGA star Michelle Wie, just to name three others – achieves great heights in her sport, why must we engage in the comparison game? Namely, discussing how these female athletes would fare against male competition.
I was asked why this matters in a recent conversation. So we engage in some “harmless” debate? That’s what sports fans do all the time, right? Who is the greatest? Gretzky or Lemieux? Jordan or Lebron? The problem is when we get into comparisons around hypotheticals such as gender versus gender which can have a real impact on our young people I think we have an obligation to stand up and speak the truth.
Caitlin Clark (and Serena Williams and Michelle Wie and Amanda Nunes and any other female athlete who has reached the summit of their respective sport) should be held in the highest regard for what she has accomplished. She is a great and accomplished athlete – period. However, comparing Clark or any other generational female athlete with their male counterparts is a fool’s game and is doing harm to our young aspiring athletes – both female and male. Further, my position is that it does damage to society in a wider sense. The lies that result and are told to our children, but especially to our daughters, can set them up for a world of disappointment.
Battle of the Sexes: the origin of the gender lie in post-feminist society?
The phrase “Battle of the Sexes” has been frequently used when discussing the real or hypothetical competition between female and male athletes. That being said, it is a phrase largely synonymous with the exhibition tennis match played between Billie Jean King and Bobbie Riggs in 1973 at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. At the time, King was regarded as the number 1 women’s player in the world for a fifth consecutive year. Riggs was also a world number 1 ranked tennis player – albeit over 15 years prior to the 1973 match with King. Riggs had been retired from professional tennis for over 10 years and was a well known commentator who was a hustler and gambler. Earlier that year, Riggs had already handily beaten another then current top female player, Margaret Court, in a similar exhibition. Riggs was 55 at the time of match while King was 29 years of age.
King ultimately won the match over Riggs and suddenly women’s tennis was in the spotlight. This match did a great amount of good for the women’s game and has played a role in women players getting better prize money relative to their male counterparts. The match also brought attention to Title IX, federal legislation in the United States, enacted just one year earlier, which was designed essentially to promote and protect female sports.
But was the impact from the King win over Riggs all good? I would argue it was at the time but over the ensuing five decades that match has taken on a legend of its own that has created some false narratives which have had negative repercussions.
The “I can do anything you can do“lie we tell our daughters
The broad strokes of the discussion of this post is one of women compared to men in one area of society – sports. However, this is also an important discussion as it relates to any role/activity which has physicality, in whole or in part, as an important requirement to complete the role/activity at the highest level.
Most reasonable-thinking individuals have given up the outdated belief that woman cannot stand shoulder-to-shoulder with men in almost every aspect of our modern world. Women are represented (and justifiably so) in growing numbers in fields like medicine, politics and business. Here is where we should be telling our daughters that they can be equal or even better than their male peers. What you put in, from an effort standpoint, will most often determine your success in these areas.
However, there is one area where men will always have an edge over women and that is the realm of the physical. Jobs which require an element of strength and endurance are almost always dominated by men. I would argue that any attempt to artificially inject more women into these jobs is at the very least unfair and at worst can compromise public safety.
To the first part about creating standards for women being unfair I am saying it is unfair to absolutely everyone. It is unfair to the males who have a greater ability to perform the role yet are often passed over to make room for more women to fill a gender quota. It is unfair to the women who could not meet the standards set for their male counterparts because these same women will be looked down upon as “token” hires. Further it is unfair for the small percentage of women who can meet the standards as they may be wrongfully lumped in with the “token” hires and also be seen to be lacking the qualifications to perform the role. For the males hired, they being the ones who met the minimum standards, it is unfair to them because they must work alongside someone who cannot “pull their weight”.
Finally, and probably most importantly, the public pays unfairly for the societal unexplainable need for this type of equity. It may be difficult to measure, but it makes sense that in some roles (think fire fighters and law enforcement as just two examples of many) when standards are lowered that we as a whole are not receiving the best level of service and there is a possibility that public safety and in some cases the safety of others in those professions is at risk.
Truth or consequences
The lie in this case is that women and men are equal in a physical sense and further that women can compete with men and have success. This is just not in any way factual and it does have wide-reaching negative ramifications in our world.
Returning to the gender discussion in sports. There is so much irrefutable evidence – both scientific/biological and in the results from athletes. There is a website which did an analysis of some of these results, focusing specifically on disciplines in track and field and swimming. There is no commentary on the home page of site other than a line at the top of the page which I will address later. The data simply lays out the facts.
The results 0f female Olympic Champions, the best of the best in the world, were compared to the results of high school age boys from the United States only. The data painted a stark picture of how the best female athletes would fare against American high school boys. When the medal count of this hypothetical (but accurate based on results) competition was tabulated the boys captured 81 medals to the women’s six. Further, 29 0f the 30 gold medals would have been won by the high school boys. (source: boys vs. women).
I mentioned that one line of commentary on the home page of the website. Here it is; “If boys win against the fastest women, is it fair for males to compete in female-only athletic events? What about transwomen and HRT?”
(For readers who do not know what HRT is, it stands for “Hormone Replacement Therapy”. Simply put, females and males receive HRT when they wish to present differently from their biological sex – ie. a man who wishes to present as a woman or a woman who wishes to present as a man. Note that I use the words “present as…” because I do not support some commonly accepted beliefs that a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man. Biology matters.).
The two sentences of commentary from the referenced home page of the website make it clear what the objective of this analysis was meant to illustrate. Further, after laying out the facts which are as irrefutable as a statement like water is wet, the site creators make some further conclusions which I encourage anyone to read. I will focus on one statement because I think it adequately makes the argument that men and women should never compete against each other at a high level.
“However, the statistics demonstrate that the differences between the sexes are not trivial, so any attempt to create a level playing field between males and females must account for all differences between the sexes or risk allowing for unfair advantages.”
Surely, if high school boys would dominate female Olympic medalists then objectively biological males should never be found in the same competitive arena unless it is a very young age or at a recreational level. Yet, in some warped desire to say men and women are “equal” this is exactly what is happening with increasing regularity. We cannot and should not allow this lie to take hold. Women’s records will be extinguished at a rapid rate by biological males should we allow this lunacy to continue.
Further, we risk not only the physical health and safety of female athletes but their mental well-being as well.
Why do we believe the lie?
It is only an opinion but I believe that this discussion of men versus women has morphed into a perversion of the truth. Even though some of us can see the truth there are those who choose to ignore what is evidently factual. Why? I don’t have anything to offer beyond my opinion. I believe the reason is rooted in the desire not to hurt someone’s feelings. We don’t want to tell our 5′ 2″ 120 pound daughter that she can’t compete on the high school football team because it may hurt her feelings. Similarly, that 6′ 4″ boy who believes he is a girl should be allowed to compete against the girls because we may hurt his feelings should we state the obvious that it is unfair to the girls to have to face a biological male.
Words like “affirm” or “validate” in these discussions of gender are often at odds with reality. Rather than “affirming” or “validating” our children I suggest we parent them which means supporting them and being their biggest cheerleaders but also telling them the truth when nobody else is willing to do so.
Readers may find it curious (or maybe some even a tad hypocritical) that I am following up a post in which I essentially said that society needs to grow a thicker collective skin as it relates to offensive language, with an entry that seems to say the opposite. However, I am going to make the case that some words are used to emotionally wreck a person or – in the case of what I am going to explore – an entire group of people.
Anyone who knows me is keenly aware that I love a good debate. That being said, I tend to stay on the sidelines and observe/listen when I believe I may be in over my head on a particular issue. Tell me that Toronto is the centre of the hockey universe and I will give you an exhaustive list of why it is Montreal. Ask me my opinion of the plight of the indigenous people of Australia and I will likely sit silent and listen so that I can at least have a rudimentary understanding of the situation.
When a group of Hamas terrorists (yes, I can use that term as most western governments have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization) entered Israel on October 7 of last year with the expressed purpose of murdering, raping and kidnapping Israelis, I took notice. I knew a little about the decades-long conflict but not enough to be more than a casual and concerned citizen.
I decided in this world where information is available at our fingertips that I wanted to delve into the history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I sought information from both sides of the political fence. I think this is always important to form a fulsome view of any topic. Reading/watching material from academics/authors/pundits who only validate your position will simply just create information silos.
I still do believe that facts, and not feelings, should be the sole factor in determining one’s position on any subject. The problem in today’s world is that feelings/emotions seem to drive the narrative on many issues – including the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The narratives surrounding the most recent conflict are where facts and emotions diverge and when we can truly see the power of words.
For the sake of this discussion I am only going to make reference to terms and words that are being widely used by the pro-Palestinian supporters in the public and media. I am not going to get into an historical analysis (although, those trying to deny that Jews are indigenous to the area in dispute is worth a simple word in response to the claim… ridiculous.) of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What I would like to demonstrate is not only how inaccurate the use of these words/terms is but also how offensive and inflammatory they are to anyone of Jewish descent. I am going to go through these words in a clinical way and compare how they are being widely used to the literal meaning of each.
Concentration camp
This term has been become largely synonymous with the Nazis during World War II. According to jewishvirtuallibrary.org the Third Reich opened its first concentration camp in 1933 when it began operation 110 camps. Research shows that between 1933 and 1945 the Nazi regime established approximately 42,500 camps. These camps operated under various mandates. According to the above referenced site “These camps were used for a range of purposes including: forced-labor camps, transit camps which served as temporary way stations, and extermination camps, built primarily or exclusively for mass murder.“
The term “concentration camp” has been co-opted and the meaning twisted (and I would argue sanitized) by pro-Palestinians to elicit an emotional response and create sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. The problem is that anyone who is probably over the age of 50 is only one generation removed from descendants who have real knowledge of what constitutes a concentration camp. The images of emaciated bodies of Jewish prisoners, the piles of shoes and belongings of individuals at camps who were rounded up like cattle before being shipped to camps, where many would not survive, were indelible images some of us will never forget. With all due respect to the situation in Gaza – that does not come close to what we historically recognize as a concentration camp.
Genocide
According to my research, the first known use of the word genocide can be traced back to the Holocaust. The origin of the word was created by a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959). He coined the word to describe the systematic eradication of the European Jews by the Nazis. The term has become internationally recognized and has a specific list of requirements that need to be met in order for the term to be accurately applied. The following link What is genocide? gives the full list and provides some context for the word and its proper use. Without getting in to too much depth, the Israeli offensive in Gaza does not come close to meeting the internationally recognized requirements to be defined as a “genocide”.
Ethnic cleansing
We constantly are hearing pundits, academics, politicians and members of the media use this word to describe the events in Gaza following the October 7 massacre perpetrated by Hamas militants in Israel. The irony of the use of this phrase by the pro-Palestinian side should not be lost on the rest of us. The fact that in the wake of the October attack that leaders of Hamas said their goal was to carry out these type of murderous acts “again and again and again…” could be taken as a clear desire to carry out an “ethnic cleansing” of the Jewish population in Israel.
So what does “ethnic cleansing” mean? First, we must point out that according to the United Nations the term is not recognized as a crime under international law. Also from the UN, I discovered the origin of the use of the term – “The term surfaced in the context of the 1990’s conflict in the former Yugoslavia and is considered to come from a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian expression “etničko čišćenje”. ” (For more context please click this link ethnic cleansing meaning and origin).
In the wake of the war in Yugoslavia in the early 90s, the UN made an attempt to define ethnic cleansing. The UN created a Commission of Experts who concluded “that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.“
What is not entirely clear is how many of these items from the exhaustive list created by the UN Commission of Experts must be present to define an act of ethnic cleansing? Clearly, it is somewhere north of one or most nations on the planet would be guilty of ethnic cleansing at some point in their history. Yes, Israel has engaged in some of the acts listed but then again so to has Hamas. The term ethnic cleansing, with no clear definitive measures, is a relatively useless and ambiguous term. Anyone who uses it will likely be unable to define it in any substantive way and therefore using it is part of a performative literary dance designed to illicit sympathy, in this specific case, for the Palestinians in Gaza.
Conclusion
Words without proper context and meaning are often used specifically in a rhetorical sense. Just because someone who seems intelligent (Dr. Norman Finkelstein comes to mind) uses words like “genocide” or “concentration camp” or “ethnic cleansing” does not mean they are utilizing the words correctly or dare I say “intelligently”.
Further, it is my opinion that using these words is done with a specific purpose in the context of the Israel-Palestinian dynamic. Think about the three terms I referenced in this post. What do they all have in common? They all can be understood intimately by Jews around the world who are well aware what the meaning of a “genocide” or “concentration camp” is because their people lived through (and so many died during) the Holocaust.
I would ask anyone who uses these terms (or accepts them as truths) in the latest chapter of the Israel-Gaza conflict to look up the definition of another term that has become popular lately – “gaslighting”. That is precisely what you are doing to Jewish people.
We are living in some strange times indeed. Safe spaces, words being considered as violence, trigger warnings, collective guilt based on your ethnic origins and/or the colour of your skin. These are just a handful of recent manifestations of collectivist thinking which has led to an increasing absence of critical thought or what was once just referred to as common sense. Simply put, common sense is becoming less and less common in the modern world and that is not something we should applaud as a society.
A Brief History of Common Sense
The history of the term “common sense” can be traced back to the 14th century but truly took hold during the American Revolution during the 18th century. Thomas Paine authored the revolutionary pamphlet Common Sense which had a profound influence on the desire for American independence from Great Britain. The 50-page pamphlet sold over 500,000 copies in a few short months at the beginning of 1776 and paved the way for the ratification of the Declaration of Independence on July 4 of that same year.
Fast forward just over a couple of centuries. I believe the phrase “common sense” began to receive negative reaction from the public and media back in the 1990s. Like many words/phrases which take a negative turn with the average person, politics usually creates that negativity. This stigma, which now seems attached to the term “common sense”, can be traced (at least in Canada) back to the Common Sense Revolution which was a slogan of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario when they ran the province from 1995 – 2002. Other countries, such as Australia, adopted similar slogans to combat a growing social democratic movement in western democracies.
Now in the wake of the negative blowback to some of that Mike Harris led PC government’s deep cuts to program funding, it appears that the term “common sense” is now under attack from the extreme left.
“In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.” Jordan B. Peterson
Think about the meaning of this quote carefully. What it means to me is at the very root of a free society that we should all have the right to express ourselves no matter how offended some people may be by what someone says. The idealogues will counter that free speech does not mean mean speech free from consequences. The problem is that exactly who determines what will be the consequences of speech deemed to be offensive? Even further, who is the arbiter of what makes certain speech offensive? After all, what is offensive to one person or group is not offensive to other individuals or groups.
We have learned from historical events that the litmus test for acceptable speech should never be what is supported by the majority of society. Should the standard of “majority rules” have been the case throughout history we would still believe the world is flat, slavery would still be acceptable and women would not be allowed to participate freely in the workforce let alone vote in elections. In all those cases it was a determined and motivated minority who were able to change the status quo. (side note, I find it a troubling occurrence in today’s world that we as a society often judge individuals from 50, 100 or even 200 years ago through today’s moral lens. Maybe this will be a topic for another day).
The best way to counter “bad” or “offensive” speech is always by taking it head-on and engaging with those who speak in a way that is deemed offensive. Said more simply, the best way to counter this type of speech is with more speech – not less. Free speech should not be afforded just to those who share the same opinions and ideals as the majority of society. Should that become the case we will live in a dystopian world similar to the fictional one from George Orwell’s novel 1984 where the thought police tell us what to think and say at all times. Protecting free speech is about protecting all speech not just the speech we support.
There is a further point I often make when speaking with my children as it relates to so-called offensive language. I believe this is even a more important discussion in today’s world of social media which allows people to say things they would never say in-person. Should anyone find themselves in a situation where they are offended by words their first response should not be to silence the alleged perpetrator. Rather, I believe they should look inward to discover why the words are offending them and further, why the person saying them should carry any meaning in their life. Also, assess why the person is using offensive language (for example, in my experience in a debate/argument, ad hominem attacks usually mean the person has no evidence to support their position).
Yes, should the person on the other side of this exchange be a loved one or a close personal friend then the “offensive” words can and often do cause emotional harm. However, should an anonymous person whom we have never met (and likely never will) say something “mean” or “hurtful” we should be teaching our children not to be offended but rather to ask “why does this person’s words matter to me?”. This will help all of us all to compartmentalize personal exchanges and assign the required priority to each exchange. Were we to create a scale from 1-10, with one being insignificant to our life and 10 being extremely important, most exchanges online would likely never rise above a 1 (possibly a 2) on the scale. To be a 10 an exchange would probably be with someone in your direct family and even further with family members who live under the same roof.
Rather than teaching our children absolutely nonsensical things like “words are violence”, I believe we should be teaching them the old adage many of us heard as children – “sticks and stones may break my bones – but words will never hurt me”.
I have been gone from this space for some time. This has been a self-imposed exile while I ponder everything related to who I am and what principles I deem important enough to express and defend. The reason I am back is that I believe just saying something is not enough – one must stand behind that belief in a real and measurable way. In layman’s terms – put up or shut up.
A brief history of what led me to pause my writing each time in this space is encapsulated in chronological order below. Some of the dates may not be exact but the events are accurate:
Pause #1 (2015) – I was made aware through third-party sources that my ex-wife (well, she wasn’t my ex-wife yet at the time) was upset at some of the content of my blog. In an effort to not make the relationship (which was already frosty at best) any more acrimonious (and also to shield our two children from any of the discussion which would probably devolve into “he said – she said”) I shelved my blog for the first time.
Pause #2 (2017) – I received an anonymous email from a source who indicated that my blog had become the topic of some negative discussion in an online forum. The individual who sent me the email indicated one of the people who objected to the content of my blog was a fellow employee at the GTHL. Other members of this unnamed online forum who shared similar negative opinions encouraged the alleged GTHL employee to speak with my boss in an effort to get me fired. Since I only had recently begun my position I thought it would be prudent to stop writing… again.
Pause #3 (2022) – I had only recently begun writing again and once again the heavy hand of cancel culture threatened me again. My boss at the GTHL summoned me to a meeting (well it was actually a Zoom call since we were not in the office full time due to Covid). During the meeting he revealed to me that someone in the mainstream media (let’s just call him RW) had contacted him and asked his opinion on the content of my blog, specifically my takes on race and gender which have dominated so many spaces over the past several years. My boss indicated that he read my blog and did not see any issue with the content but others may not necessarily agree with his sentiment (or my opinions). To protect my livelihood I stopped writing… again
So on three separate occasions I have allowed the “woke mob”, an online entity I had vowed would not silence me, to do just that. This left me questioning not only my character but the world that has emerged in the past decade. What message was I conveying to my still relatively young children who are supposed to look to their father for moral guidance? I have been torn – go along to get along or stand up for that in which I believe?
Some life changes have made me choose to stand on principle rather than just to go with the flow. Most notably, I left my position with the GTHL in the fall of 2022. That decision was made partly due to the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion mandate which had permeated much of society, including workplaces almost everywhere. Imagine coming to work every day knowing that the focus of almost everything you did would have a DEI backdrop. This was further compounded given that some of the narratives surrounding this objective were at best exaggerated and at worst fabricated (I will not get into the discussion in this particular post but maybe, just maybe I will in a future post). Don’t misread what I am writing to mean that I don’t believe that there are issues in society related to race, gender and sexual orientation that need to be addressed but I do not believe, like noted “race hustlers” such as Ibram X Kendi and Reverend Al Sharpton, that racism/sexism are baked into the system. The process of doing my job had become mentally exhausting given my conflicting beliefs to the all-encompassing DEI agenda.
I think the tipping point for me was sitting in a DEI workshop with all the staff at the GTHL. I remember listening to the material which in essence told me that everything should be looked at through a racial lens. I was the oppressor due to my skin colour (and my gender). Unless I acknowledged this I would be in effect contributing to racial bias and discrimination.
This goes against everything I have ever believed to be true – that people should be judged on their character – not by the colour of their skin. The world that Martin Luther King had expressed his desire to live in when he delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech during the height of the civil rights movement had been hijacked. Now instead of a society striving for a “colour-blind” world where skin colour would be irrelevant, we are living in a world where we are told to always look at race. The race hustlers I mentioned earlier had successfully created a narrative that when an injustice or slight (whether perceived or real) occurs it depends on the colour of the alleged victim’s (and the alleged perpetrator’s) skin as to whether racism is at the core of said injustice/slight. A rewriting of language where people with white skin could never experience “racism” and a man could never be victim of “sexism” are just a couple of the core beliefs of this twisted ideology. The collective rather than the individual has become more important. Terms like “intersectionality” can determine one’s position in the ongoing victim Olympics. Facts no longer seem to matter (ask Roland Fryer, esteemed Harvard professor about that contention).
The time has come for all of us – regardless of race, skin colour, religion, gender or sexual orientation to stand up and push back against a divisive ideology that has permeated our schools, public institutions, corporations and political offices. Should any one ask why the simple answer is the truth still matters.
Remember the days when as elementary and/or high school students we were made (forced?) to stand in front of our peers and speak about a topic we may have been passionate about? That was something I wish would return in this world of (un)social media. Sweaty palms, dry throat and the hope that you did not mix up your cue cards (for the younger readers, we actually wrote out our speeches long-hand on small lined cards that would fit in our hands. No I-pads!).
I have to say, I was a pretty decent public speaker (I actually was the class winner one year which meant I just had to speak in front of a larger audience in the school gym, leading to even sweatier palms and a drier throat;)). However, I recall in high school when I knew I was beat one year in the speech competition. I cannot even recollect the subject matter for my speech, nor do I recall my classmate’s name who had the winning speech. I just remember the topic, or should I say individual they chose to speak on… Terry Fox.
Fox needs a permanent and significant place in the psyche of all Canadians
Canadian notes of currency have been receiving a facelift recently and that transformation will continue over the coming months and years. The transformation began with the $10 bank note in 2018 with civil rights activist Viola Desmond becoming the first person who was not a monarch nor a dead politician to be the face of any denomination of Canadian currency. We now have a new monarch – King Charles III – who will adorn not only our coins but also the $20 bill.
Next in line is a redesign of the $5 bill. Canadians have known this has been coming for a number of years. The government has narrowed down the list of worthy candidates to ten. Among those, I believe that Terry Fox stands out above the others.
Every poll that I have read seems to support my belief. The people of Canada, regardless of age, gender, race, religion, province of residence, etc. etc., have spoken loud and clear. Terry Fox should be the new face on Canada’s $5 bill. With all due respect to the other candidates that have been put forth by the government, this is a no-brainer. Terry Fox crosses all cultural, social, political and economic lines. Why do I say this? Because cancer does not discriminate. The disease has touched young and old; male and female; wealthy and poor; people of all races and religions. Terry Fox shone a bright light on that fact when he undertook the seemingly impossible task of running across our vast nation – on one leg – during his Marathon of Hope.
Our world has become divided in many ways but I am old enough to recall when a curly-headed young man found a way to unite our country and captivate not only Canada but the world.
Terry’s goal was to raise awareness of the impact of a disease that took his right leg in 1977 at the tender age of 18. Just over three years later he was undertaking what most would perceive as the unfathomable – even on two legs. Fox would attempt to run across the entire country from Newfoundland to British Columbia. He would run the equivalent of one marathon (26.2 miles or 42.195 kilometers) every day!
Born in Winnipeg but raised in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Terry set specific goals for his seemingly impossible journey across Canada. First, he wanted to raise awareness of the toll cancer had taken not in his life but in the lives of Canadians (especially children) from coast-to-coast. He wanted to be the voice for all those touched by the disease. The second goal was to raise one single dollar for every Canadian man, woman and child. At the time Canada was a growing country that boasted a population of 24 million.
Ultimately, Canadians know the story did not end with Terry reaching his home province of British Columbia but instead ended on the Trans-Canada Highway near Thunder Bay, when cancer resurfaced in Terry’s body. I remember how heartbreaking it was to watch Terry be interviewed as he was being transported away on a gurney. His anguish at having his Marathon of Hope halted and the voice he had given all cancer victims seemingly silenced, came through loud and clear.
Despite the physical end to Terry’s run across Canada it was not the end to his impact on Canada – it was in fact the beginning. Canadians dug deep and helped Terry realize and surpass the goal of $24 million raised to support cancer research.
That was just the first chapter of a legacy that Terry has left for our nation long after he succumbed to cancer on June 28, 1981. To date the Terry Fox Foundation is closing in on $1 billion raised for cancer research. The Foundation website states that 10,000 events have contributed to 1,300 research projects. Over 60 nations have hosted Terry Fox runs over the past four decades.
Terry deserves a permanent place in Canada’s history that goes beyond a statue or plaque. Given how much money the foundation that bears his name has raised to combat the disease that took his life, nothing would be more fitting than to have Terry’s determined and courageous image staring back at all Canadians when they pull a fiver out of their wallet.
In the words of Terry “Even, if I don’t finish, we need others to continue. It’s got to keep going.”.
Let’s start this edition of One Dad With a Blog by playing a little game that seems to be popular with the younger generation these days – two truths and a lie. See if you can spot the lie.
Men are the victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) at a rate that is significant when compared to women
The gender pay gap is statistically insignificant
Race appears to play no significant role in officer-involved shootings in the USA
Well, which one of the statements is the lie? This is my gotcha’ red pill moment. All three of the statements above are true! (cue the calls for my head because I must be a sexist and a racist for doing nothing more than stating the truth). I am not making any claims about the relationship between the facts above and the possible reasons why these statements may be true (not in this post anyway). I am just laying bare the facts. What I am trying to say is that, we should not believe everything we read, hear or see on any subject. That line of thought was a staple of what was imparted upon me by my parents and educators (and later in life by my peers). This is the essence of critical thought.
Ironically, in an age where fact-checking has become infinitely more simple and less time-consuming, we now spend less effort engaging in checking the validity of any claim. I am not sure why this may be true, other than my belief that finding out the truth may challenge our core beliefs on some issues. Some people will always choose the blue pill (for those who miss the red pill/blue pill comparison check out The Matrix. Awesome movie by the way!)
To show that I am not just making statements and expecting the reader to believe them (remember, don’t believe everything you read) I will provide some statistical background on each of the three statements from the beginning of this post.
Statement: Males are the victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) at a rate that is significant when compared to females
Let me start by saying that I am not diminishing the plight of women who have been subjected to abuse at the hands of a partner. That is not the purpose of this exercise. I am just challenging the widely held belief that women are almost always the victim of intimate partner violence. This is statistically just not true. Numbers on IPV gathered by the Canadian and American governments make it clear that men are often victims.
Based on 2018 Statistics Canada numbers these are the facts on IPV for those in intimate relationships (IPV statistics – Canada) :
23% of women vs. 17% of men were victims of physical abuse
43% of women vs. 35% of men were the victims of psychological abuse
12% of women vs. 2% of men were the victims of sexual abuse
The irony is that the government is still presenting a blue pill reality despite the data. The statement in the report which preceded the numbers listed above was “More specifically, women were significantly more likely than men to have experienced any form of IPV”. The word “significantly” is the one with which I would take issue. Looking at the numbers, especially the first two, I find it hard to say that those represent “significant” differences. Further, why are we playing the victim Olympics rather than recognizing that ALL of those individuals listed in the data are victims regardless of gender?
Taking a look at US numbers, a similar picture is painted – men are the victims of IPV at a far greater rate than what the narrative in society would suggest. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks statistics on IPV and those numbers essentially mirror the data from the Canadian government (IPV statistics – USA) .
The graphic below from the CDC gives a snapshot of the situation in the States.
Again, my purpose in presenting these facts is not meant to minimize the terrible reality that abused women face but rather to illustrate that IPV should not be seen as the gender-based issue as we are repeatedly told it is by the media and government. We can quibble over use of language like “significant” but the horrific truth that IPV victims share is a truth which is not any less significant for male victims than it is for female victims.
(Author’s note: I am not an “anecdotes over statistics” guy but I have witnessed males in my life who have been physically abused by their partners. This is one reason why I chose this topic.)
Statement: The gender pay gap is statistically insignificant
This statement is a little more difficult to prove than the previous one on IPV. There is a lot of nuance to this discussion but in the end it comes down to the methodology used by those who believe the gender pay gap (reported as 23 cents on the dollar in North America by gender pay gap believers). Simply put, the methodology used to arrive at the 23 cent gap would not pass the standard of a first-year economics class in university.
Let me explain the methodology in the simplest terms. Those who support the gender pay gap come to the 23 cent number by averaging the earnings of all men against that of all women. The variables which are left out of the calculation are wide-ranging and include:
position/profession
number of hours worked
part-time vs. full-time worked
parental leave dynamics
education
Again, the statement I made is not an analysis of why men more often choose disciplines in post-secondary institutions which often lead to higher-earning fields or why women are more likely to take parental leave more often versus men or to work fewer hours. Rather, it is just a statement of the facts that the gap between male and female wages is not one which is based on gender by any significant measure. The article in the following link by Christina Hoff Sommers (aka The Factual Feminist) is from 2012 but it illustrates some of the points I made above. (Wage Gap Myth Exposed)
The idea that women are paid 23 cents on the dollar less than their male counterparts doing exactly the same work when all variables such as tenure, education, hours worked, etc. are accounted for is just not a reasonable statement. Simply put, it is not true. Some will provide anecdotal evidence as proof that there is a sizeable gender pay gap but the statistical analysis should trump any exception that is presented. Also, there is legislation in North America – the Pay Equity Act in Canada and the Equality Act in the USA – that makes it illegal to discriminate against workers based on gender.
Statement:Race appears to play no significant role in officer-involved shootings in the USA
This is one that will surely raise the most eyebrows among readers. We are constantly being bombarded by the media about incidents involving the use of deadly force by police on people within the black community. Like the two previous statements, my goal is not to get to the bottom of why use of deadly force occurs I am just trying to counter the narrative that seems to paint a picture that young black men are being “hunted” by police in the USA.
To support my statement I will lean on a study conducted by Roland G. Fryer Jr., a professor of Economics at Harvard University. Fryer conducted his study using data from police departments in California, Colorado, Florida, Texas and Washington. The data collected from these police departments was for the years between 2000 – 2015 inclusive. Worth noting, Fryer is a black man who grew up in Texas.
Fryer is an academic rock star. He is the youngest African-American to receive tenure at Harvard and the first to win the John Bates Clark medal awarded to the most promising American economist under 40. He often stated that the data exposed conflicts between the two parts of himself – the southern black man and the economist. How could what he saw and was told growing up be in stark conflict with the statistical data?
All Fryer could do was analyze and present his findings. That is what an economist does. His study found that although blacks were more likely to be subjected to non-lethal uses of force by police (eg. pushing, striking, use of taser or pepper spray) they were no more likely to be the victims of lethal force than their white counterparts. In fact, with the data from Houston, the results indicated that blacks were 20 per cent less likely to be killed in an officer-involved shooting than whites and Hispanics. The following link is a great unvarnished read on Roland Fryers’ research (Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings)
I am not trying to dispel the existence of racial bias in policing. My gut says that it does exist at some level. Do I think it is widespread and systemic like we are led to believe by some in the media and activists looking to “defund the police”? The statistics tell me no. Also, this discussion does not delve into other variables related to encounters with police such as addiction, mental illness, poverty, compliance and – the big one in my opinion – culture (maybe in another post I will explain why I think culture is the “big one”.) which all may play a role in use of lethal force by police.
(author’s note, I have linked some background below on Prof. Fryer’s study as well as two similar studies on police use of force)
Hopefully, by reading this, at the very least I will make readers pause and think critically. My goal is not to change your mind but to open it. Don’t ever be fearful of having an opinion but always make that opinion an informed one, rooted in raw statistics and data as opposed to anecdotes and emotions.
To truly work toward solutions on specific issues I believe we must first tell the truth. For example, to minimize, ignore or outright deny the fact that males are often the victim of IPV means that those victims have no voice (and probably no resources). Further, recognizing the male victims existence does not in any way undermine or weaken the debate surrounding female victims – it adds more voices to the debate on IPV.
Saying that the pay gap is due to a single variable, gender, does not address issues such as the lack of adequate parental leave in some countries, regardless of gender. Making the discussion about gender does little to uncover why more women are attracted to disciplines in university which generally result in them working in lower paying careers than their male counterparts.
Creating a false narrative that police are hunting young black men does not help issues related to policing like recruitment, compensation and training – specifically how officers are equipped to deal with issues on the job related to mental health and addiction. Nor does it address some of the cultural issues prevalent in some high crime communities.
Here is one final piece of advice for all of us individually and as a society. Always opt for the red pill over the blue one – even it makes you uncomfortable – because I believe the truth will set you free.
tribal social warfare and how it is poisoning and polarizing our society
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life, your right to say it.”Voltaire (1759)
Why has the world become so polarized? What has changed in my lifetime to make our society more… divided? When I say divided, I mean divided by a tribal mentality – meaning if you are not in my “tribe” you are not my friend – in fact you are my enemy.
Even more troubling is that if you do not hold a position on an issue at all you are cast in a negative light as well by those who push specific narratives. Phrases like “silence is violence” have become part of the buzzword terminology wielded to condemn not just those who may oppose a position but individuals who do not have any clearly defined belief on a subject. Group-speak and group-think are no longer just fictional social concepts from George Orwell’s novel “1984” they are the underbelly of our so-called free society.
I remember when I attended university, having a different opinion did not necessarily mean that we could not be friends. I had many lively discussions with individuals I considered close friends (I am looking at you Peter Guest!). After some very heated verbal exchanges we were able to put that aside and not pass judgement upon the other side based on their opinion. We based our perception of that person primarily on their actions – not their opinions. Character mattered and this was defined more by what you did than what you said.
The idea of judging a person’s character on what they do seems to be something that is taking a backseat in today’s world. We now pigeonhole individuals on the basis what they have to say on a specific issue. You tell someone you are not pro-choice (or pro-life for that matter) and there is no question – you must be a terrible person. Somewhere along the line, having a different opinion seems to be not only an indicator of your character but the defining aspect of that character. Many seem to take the position that should you sit on the opposite side of an issue at best you are someone who lacks any moral compass and at worst you are someone who should be silenced. Either way this type of person becomes someone with whom we (meaning people in general) would never associate.
What has this led to in society? Tribal mentality. That tribalism has meant that groups are trying to gain what I call “righteous ground” (I am going to refer to this term by RG for simplicity) on key issues. As an individual you MUST conform to certain dogmatic opinions or you are the enemy – part of the opposite tribe. There can be no nuance in how you think on these issues. You either agree entirely or you are not granted access to the tribe. Should you be part of the tribe that has seized that moral RG on an issue you seem to have been granted some arbitrary power to silence ANY debate on that specific issue.
How often have some of us heard that expressing an opinion on something related to race, gender, sexual orientation is verboten if it challenges the dogmatic doctrine of the people on RG? For members of the tribe which has taken hold of RG, discourse and dialogue with the other tribe is for the most part not tolerated.
Some of you reading this may say “what is wrong with belonging to a tribe”? We see them in other aspects of society and there is no real negative impact. Leafs Nation is not causing any social upheaval (other than giving a whole group of people false hope… but that is a discussion for another day). Having a girls (or boys) night out is perfectly healthy. Tribes have been part of the human social structure in various forms for as long as humankind has existed. Many tribes that we see in society today are not a threat in any way.
However, when tribalism is about seizing RG with an eye on silencing any discussion it becomes a very dangerous prospect for all of us. Further, make no mistake, when the goal of a tribe is more about subjugating others than just existing and creating a better life for the tribe without negative impact for those outside of the group it becomes an insidious element of our world. Think about the rise of fascism and communism in the first half of the 20th century as extremes of this type of unabated tribalism and the negative outcomes that resulted from tribal mentality.
How can we as individuals address this issue which threatens speech, expression and ultimately freedom in our society? We must make it our goal to ALWAYS allow others to express opinions freely without threat of recourse/retribution. Further, we shouldn’t be afraid to make our own positions heard for fear of being labeled or ostracized. I know people will say “what about speech which is hateful and could incite violence and/or put vulnerable individuals at risk?” To that I say we have laws to address any type of hateful opinion which tries to hide behind the shield of free speech. All speech needs to be protected – not just speech with which we agree.
Maybe I am an anomaly in our current world as I actively seek out opposing viewpoints. This approach only serves to better informs my chosen position on a topic. Making a conscious decision to seek out opposing positions in some cases (but not all) may even change my mind – or at the very least allow for some nuance in my stance on a specific topic.
I think the words “let him/her/them speak”have largely disappeared from our society. This has done nothing but create a multitude of silos and echo chambers. Everyone should make the commitment to start a revolution and make “let him/her/them speak” become the rally cry of this revolution.
Check out a new feature – the poll – on the right side of the page. As always, comments and feedback are not only welcome they are encouraged!
to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge
Readers of this blog (my first entry in over five years) may be asking why I opened this essay with a definition. The explanation for this begins with my previous foray into the world of online writing. I started my blog as a cathartic exercise to help me at a difficult juncture in my life. A breakdown in my marriage, the loss of my job (for the second time in about five years) were difficult to cope with but I found some relief in putting some thoughts out there in the digital universe (even if my audience was mostly limited to friends and family). Many (but not all) of the topics of my posts were related to my own experiences and my feelings surrounding the family court system in Canada (and in other western countries).
The opinions were mine but they were supported by both empirical and anecdotal evidence. I did not want to play the victim card but rather point out that narratives surrounding gender inequality are often (always?) focused on the plight of women. Mention men when it comes to systemic imbalance and you might expect to be met with a virtual eye roll from many online. The idea that men can be treated unfairly just does not register with a large portion of our population – even if the evidence is as plain as day. My experiences touched enough people so much so that friends and sometimes friends of friends reached out to me for advice on how to navigate the family court system. In a very small way I was making a difference.
Many people see the acknowledgement that men may have to overcome discrimination as absurd and, even further, as an attack on women. It is, of course neither. One can affirm the need to support men on some issues which may impact them almost exclusively or at the very least at a greater proportion then women (think suicide and parental rights) and still do the same for women on issues which impact them exclusively or more routinely than men. The problem is that just by pointing this out one can be attacked and ridiculed online, labeled a sexist, a misogynist or worse be threatened with retribution for holding an opinion which goes counter to popularly accepted narratives.
My blog elicited each of these type of responses. I was attacked online and labeled, people I knew for years unfriended me on social media. I did not care because as the saying goes, you really find out who your friends are when times are the toughest. These people were never my friends in reality and I was better off not having them as any part of my life. However, the final straw for me was when someone warned me that I was about to be doxed (there is the much anticipated tie-in with the opening of this post) for doing nothing more than expressing my well-thought out and statistically supported opinion. Here is a brief chronological background:
April 4, 2016: I launched my own blog during a time where I needed an outlet to express myself
December 2016: I am downsized at my work (the second time this has happened in five years)
August 2017: I start a new job
September 2017: I stop publishing my blog after receiving an anonymous email
The last point on the list is the one I would like to home in on and provide more context. I received the email from an individual who was not known to me and did not reveal their identity. The thrust of the communication was this, someone with whom I worked had read my blog (the author of the email did not/could not reveal the alleged co-worker’s identity); the alleged co-worker did not agree with the opinions I expressed; the alleged co-worker was active online in chat groups; some members of one chat group encouraged the individual to go to my boss and “out” me as a sexist. (author’s note, I use the word “alleged” when describing the person who wanted to seek retribution against me for holding an opinion because without evidence I do not know for certain that this co-worker actually existed).
This email made me pause and think. What had I written that was so offensive to have someone label me a sexist? Why was the expression of an opinion so toxic that it seemed to justify doxing me publicly? Would the person really contact my employer and if so would my boss’ response result in my termination? I read over all my posts dozens of times each and I still saw nothing which one would deem offensive. Even if someone took offence I have come to realize that being offended is a choice each person makes.
When met with a conflicting point of view on anything an individual has two rational options, in my opinion. Stand up for your beliefs in a respectful manner and engage in dialogue in attempt to present an opposing viewpoint or… ignore them entirely. Engage or ignore has become my mantra. Cancelling someone or seeking to punish that person for doing nothing more than holding an opinion should not be an option in a democratic and free society – full stop. This does not seem to be what is happening today in the world. People are ending relationships, families are being torn apart, careers are being destroyed – just because of opinions.
Back to my story. Since I had bills to pay and two young children to support I had to error on the side of caution. I confided in my brother whom I trusted to keep the information I shared between the two of us. He had read my blog and saw absolutely nothing overly provocative about the content of any of my posts. However, his advice was one which focused on risk assessment. Meaning that I had to make a decision based on the worst case scenario. Did I value my job more or did I want to continue writing?
The decision was simple given that one paid the bills and the other was something that, although it was a passion and provided me with a level of therapeutic relief, was not bringing in any income. I made the choice to pull the plug on my blog and avoid the potential backlash the anonymous emailer had warned me about. I have pondered whether I made the correct decision. I am all about standing on principles but in this case I backed off that position to avoid personal loss – both financially and to my reputation.
The continued revisiting of my decision over the past five years is what has brought me to this moment. I have decided that telling the truth – not a narrative which is safe and easy – is what I am about as a person. No more giving in to the mob online who have a hard time hearing opposing points of view from those which they hold. No more being silenced due to a fear of being (wrongly) labeled. I now know that individuals who label people are often unable/unwilling to engage in dialogue when confronted with ideals and opinions which challenge their own (further, I know what I am as a person and it is not what some have labeled me). There are some people who wish to silence debate while I choose to engage those with whom I disagree – engage or ignore!! Even after debating an issue we can still break bread together. The idea of concepts such as middle ground and compromise when it comes to political, social, moral and philosophical opinions is not dead and it certainly will not die on my watch!
OneDadWithABlog 