Opinion: Bridging the gendered political divide not for marriage, but for love - The Globe and Mail | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Bridging the gendered political divide not for marriage, but for love – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail.

The time-honoured tradition – or hardwired near-universal reality – of men and women pairing off is on the cusp of vanishing. Or so it may seem.

The Financial Times gathered recent survey data indicating that in countries ranging from the United States to South Korea, Tunisia to Poland, young men veer right, while their female counterparts practically projectile vomit at the sight of a MAGA hat. Accompanying graphs demonstrated the starkness and novelty of the split. How did it happen? Per author John Burn-Murdoch, “The #MeToo movement was the key trigger, giving rise to fiercely feminist values among young women who felt empowered to speak out against long-running injustices.” Moreover, “the proliferation of smartphones and social media mean that young men and women now increasingly inhabit separate spaces and experience separate cultures.”

Mr. Burn-Murdoch posted that the trend “provides the answer to several puzzles.” It certainly taps into two popular, intertwined, narratives: that marriageable men, who have always been hard to find, are borderline extinct, and that heterosexuality itself is kaput. Opinions differ: Is this a tragedy, or should we rejoice that the future is queer?

In November, The Washington Post ran an editorial about U.S. findings, breathlessly warning, “If attitudes don’t shift, a political dating mismatch will threaten marriage.” In her own analysis, Christine Emba argued that this is no mere neutral split: “Men (in aggregate) are less appealing to women generally in this moment, due to well-documented social and economic factors. And women, newly empowered and able to manage financially on their own, simply don’t want to be with many of them. Men are becoming more conservative… as a response.”

I am familiar with the argument that women have had it with men, and wouldn’t contest that some women have had it with some men. But is it true that men’s appeal to women fluctuates according to their population-wide eligibility? Some conditions favour marriage more than others, but sexual orientation is real. Even if there’s no man around you’d want to marry – even if marriage itself isn’t for you – if you’re wired for man-liking, men you shall like.

It can be tempting to say that it doesn’t matter if men and women find each other undatable. One viral response to the Financial Times graphs was from writer Sophia Benoit: “Not to be too trite (or heteronormative) but I really really think this is the HUGE reason dating is so rough right now. The pool of available men whose politics don’t suck is actually a shallow puddle.” Is it “heteronormative” to say that most of the dating pool is straight, when it just … is?

Some of the more amusing polarization-graph commentary has come from commentators for whom an end of heterosexuality would pose no personal impediments. On a recent Savage Lovecast, Dan Savage highlighted the sexism on the American right (”Women shouldn’t vote” is having a moment, lovely), and went on to suggest that groups of liberal straight women will “decide that they would rather share one good man with their best girlfriends than marry one shitty man.” That, or they could lean into the bisexual potential straight women are purported to have, and date other women.

I realize hetero-polyamory is all the rage, but there is a reason that one-man-several-women versions of it are not historically associated with feminist outcomes. The idea that things would play out differently if you were looking at ethical non-monogamy rather than polygamy runs contrary to common sense. (Consider how it goes at colleges where women outnumber men.) And did we not learn all the needed lessons about “male feminists” during #MeToo, when, one by one, they turned out to be not so very feminist after all in their personal lives?

As for women living amongst ourselves, this not only idealizes all-female environments, but also ignores that for all the talk of women’s sexual fluidity, most women are straight, and rather a lot of the queer-identified ones prefer male partners.

And what would come of the remaining men? It would be business as usual for gay men, but what of the rest? Would they not cluster in a toxic incel cave? Or is the idea that they’d transcend heterosexuality as well?

Maybe! Nellie Bowles, of the Free Press newsletter, quipped: “This very smart Financial Times analysis shows that you will all have to be homosexuals within five years. It’s fine over here, guys!”

As tongue-in-cheek commentary about these findings, “Game over for heterosexuality” has a certain ring to it. But in all seriousness, we must live with the reality that most women want men and vice versa, and address this political split head-on. Not to save marriage, but to defend love.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Quebec party supports member who accused fellow politicians of denigrating minorities

Published

 on

 

MONTREAL – A Quebec political party has voted to support one of its members facing backlash for saying that racialized people are regularly disparaged at the provincial legislature.

Québec solidaire members adopted an emergency resolution at the party’s convention late Sunday condemning the hate directed at Haroun Bouazzi, without endorsing his comments.

Bouazzi, who represents a Montreal riding, had told a community group that he hears comments every day at the legislature that portray North African, Muslim, Black or Indigenous people as the “other,” and that paint their cultures are dangerous or inferior.

Other political parties have said Bouazzi’s remarks labelled elected officials as racists, and the co-leaders of his own party had rebuked him for his “clumsy and exaggerated” comments.

Bouazzi, who has said he never intended to describe his colleagues as racist, thanked his party for their support and for their commitment to the fight against systemic racism.

Party co-spokesperson Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois said after Sunday’s closed-door debate that he considers the matter to be closed.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 18, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Virginia Democrats advance efforts to protect abortion, voting rights, marriage equality

Published

 on

 

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Democrats who control both chambers of the Virginia legislature are hoping to make good on promises made on the campaign trail, including becoming the first Southern state to expand constitutional protections for abortion access.

The House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced three proposed constitutional amendments Wednesday, including a measure to protect reproductive rights. Its members also discussed measures to repeal a now-defunct state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and ways to revise Virginia’s process to restore voting rights for people who served time for felony crimes.

“This meeting was an important next step considering the moment in history we find ourselves in,” Democratic Del. Cia Price, the committee chair, said during a news conference. “We have urgent threats to our freedoms that could impact constituents in all of the districts we serve.”

The at-times raucous meeting will pave the way for the House and Senate to take up the resolutions early next year after lawmakers tabled the measures last January. Democrats previously said the move was standard practice, given that amendments are typically introduced in odd-numbered years. But Republican Minority Leader Todd Gilbert said Wednesday the committee should not have delved into the amendments before next year’s legislative session. He said the resolutions, particularly the abortion amendment, need further vetting.

“No one who is still serving remembers it being done in this way ever,” Gilbert said after the meeting. “Certainly not for something this important. This is as big and weighty an issue as it gets.”

The Democrats’ legislative lineup comes after Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, to the dismay of voting-rights advocates, rolled back a process to restore people’s civil rights after they completed sentences for felonies. Virginia is the only state that permanently bans anyone convicted of a felony from voting unless a governor restores their rights.

“This amendment creates a process that is bounded by transparent rules and criteria that will apply to everybody — it’s not left to the discretion of a single individual,” Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, the patron of the voting rights resolution, which passed along party lines, said at the news conference.

Though Democrats have sparred with the governor over their legislative agenda, constitutional amendments put forth by lawmakers do not require his signature, allowing the Democrat-led House and Senate to bypass Youngkin’s blessing.

Instead, the General Assembly must pass proposed amendments twice in at least two years, with a legislative election sandwiched between each statehouse session. After that, the public can vote by referendum on the issues. The cumbersome process will likely hinge upon the success of all three amendments on Democrats’ ability to preserve their edge in the House and Senate, where they hold razor-thin majorities.

It’s not the first time lawmakers have attempted to champion the three amendments. Republicans in a House subcommittee killed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights in 2022, a year after the measure passed in a Democrat-led House. The same subcommittee also struck down legislation supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal an amendment from 2006 banning marriage equality.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers voted 16-5 in favor of legislation protecting same-sex marriage, with four Republicans supporting the resolution.

“To say the least, voters enacted this (amendment) in 2006, and we have had 100,000 voters a year become of voting age since then,” said Del. Mark Sickles, who sponsored the amendment as one of the first openly gay men serving in the General Assembly. “Many people have changed their opinions of this as the years have passed.”

A constitutional amendment protecting abortion previously passed the Senate in 2023 but died in a Republican-led House. On Wednesday, the amendment passed on party lines.

If successful, the resolution proposed by House Majority Leader Charniele Herring would be part of a growing trend of reproductive rights-related ballot questions given to voters. Since 2022, 18 questions have gone before voters across the U.S., and they have sided with abortion rights advocates 14 times.

The voters have approved constitutional amendments ensuring the right to abortion until fetal viability in nine states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Vermont. Voters also passed a right-to-abortion measure in Nevada in 2024, but it must be passed again in 2026 to be added to the state constitution.

As lawmakers debated the measure, roughly 18 members spoke. Mercedes Perkins, at 38 weeks pregnant, described the importance of women making decisions about their own bodies. Rhea Simon, another Virginia resident, anecdotally described how reproductive health care shaped her life.

Then all at once, more than 50 people lined up to speak against the abortion amendment.

“Let’s do the compassionate thing and care for mothers and all unborn children,” resident Sheila Furey said.

The audience gave a collective “Amen,” followed by a round of applause.

___

Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

___

Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Trump chooses anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary

Published

 on

 

NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump says he will nominate anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, putting him in charge of a massive agency that oversees everything from drug, vaccine and food safety to medical research and the social safety net programs Medicare and Medicaid.

“For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social site announcing the appointment. Kennedy, he said, would “Make America Great and Healthy Again!”

Kennedy, a former Democrat who ran as an independent in this year’s presidential race, abandoned his bid after striking a deal to give Trump his endorsement with a promise to have a role in health policy in the administration.

He and Trump have since become good friends, with Kennedy frequently receiving loud applause at Trump’s rallies.

The expected appointment was first reported by Politico Thursday.

A longtime vaccine skeptic, Kennedy is an attorney who has built a loyal following over several decades of people who admire his lawsuits against major pesticide and pharmaceutical companies. He has pushed for tighter regulations around the ingredients in foods.

With the Trump campaign, he worked to shore up support among young mothers in particular, with his message of making food healthier in the U.S., promising to model regulations imposed in Europe. In a nod to Trump’s original campaign slogan, he named the effort “Make America Healthy Again.”

It remains unclear how that will square with Trump’s history of deregulation of big industries, including food. Trump pushed for fewer inspections of the meat industry, for example.

Kennedy’s stance on vaccines has also made him a controversial figure among Democrats and some Republicans, raising question about his ability to get confirmed, even in a GOP-controlled Senate. Kennedy has espoused misinformation around the safety of vaccines, including pushing a totally discredited theory that childhood vaccines cause autism.

He also has said he would recommend removing fluoride from drinking water. The addition of the material has been cited as leading to improved dental health.

HHS has more than 80,000 employees across the country. It houses the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the National Institutes of Health.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine nonprofit group, Children’s Health Defense, currently has a lawsuit pending against a number of news organizations, among them The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy took leave from the group when he announced his run for president but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

__ Seitz reported from Washington.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version