Talking Motherhood, Career and Feminism with Marcy

I first met my friend Marcy at church almost 10 years ago. In face we once delivered a sermon together in honour of International Women’s Day (if you listen to the recording at the end of the post you can hear Jacob screaming as Jon carries him out of the service). I was trying to remember the first time we actually had a conversation, and I couldn’t, so I’ll have to apologize to her. But regardless of when or how that auspicious first meeting happened, what I do remember clearly was serving on a committee together with her. And I remember how much I sincerely enjoyed working with her.

What I love about Marcy is how warm and open she is. I also love how readily she shares from her own experiences. If you have been a regular visitor to my comments section, you will already be familiar with her wise and well thought-out responses. In fact, I have come to think of her as something of a mentor – someone who has been right where I am now, and come through it all with flying colours.

I decided to ask Marcy to be on my podcast, first of all because I consider her a friend and a role model. But more than that, I knew that she had a lot to share. She started her career as a school teacher, and became an at-home mother while her children were small. She was a feminist, and when her children got a little older she returned to school, helped to found the local women’s resource society and an emergency shelter for women facing domestic abuse. She became an employment counselor, and worked as a consultant, eventually moving into full-time work. Her story gives me hope that I can build something great as a mother of young children.

I encourage you to listen to Marcy’s interview. It’s full of inspiration, humour, and warmth, just like Marcy herself. And then I encourage you to talk to your own role models, and let them know what they’ve meant for you.

I’m working on a very exciting interview for next week. I can’t wait to share it with you! In the meantime, subscribe to the Strocel.com podcast, and you’ll be sure not to miss a minute of it!

Accountability vs. Vigilantism

In mid-June, in the wake of the Vancouver Canucks’ Stanley Cup loss, rioting broke out in Vancouver. Those of us who consider Vancouver our city were deeply hurt and extremely angry with the people who overturned cars, set fires, smashed windows and looted stores. That is not our Vancouver.

In the aftermath of the riot, two things happened. The first was that Vancouverites joined together to bring healing to the city. People wrote messages of love and hope on the “apology wall” outside a looted store. They helped to clean up and offered support to the police who were on the front lines during the riot. The second thing that happened was that efforts began to identify perpetrators. The police were deluged with tips, including photos, video, links to Craiglist listings and screen shots of Facebook status updates from rioters.

As it turns out, rioters are maybe not the most forward-thinking individuals, in general. They will not take the time to think about whether or not posting the photo of yourself on top of the burning police car online is a good idea, and they will not hesitate to list the purses they stole for sale on a public website. Not really surprising, because I have to think that if you were able to consider the consequences of your actions, you probably wouldn’t be rioting.

I am glad that the people who trashed the city are being held responsible for their actions. It is not OK to steal and destroy property and generally hold a city hostage. Let me be very clear here: rioting is not OK. Don’t do it! And you will definitely not get away with it in this day and age when every person has a cell phone with a camera!

The public cry to identify and hold those accountable, though, has ventured into territory that makes me feel uncomfortable. The family of one 17-year-old who was set a car on fire (and accepted responsibility for his actions) was forced to flee from their home following threats. Perceived perpetrators have been harassed and threatened with violence. Vigilantism has taken over. Instead of allowing the police to do their job, some people want to exact their own retribution. I happen to think that’s not OK, just as rioting is not OK.

The attitude has taken hold, though, as people saw how effectively social media tools can be used to identify the perpetrators of crimes. This led to a comment from a local politician that made me stop and stare. I was reading a newspaper article about a small lake in a park not too far from my house, which is stocked with trout for fishing. Some people are apparently catching more than their daily allowance, or fishing without a license. Other people are smoking and littering. Not cool, folks. A concerned citizen brought the issue, as well as a petition with 59 names on it, in front to the city council to discuss possible solutions. Here is the quote from the article that stood out to me:

Councillor Mae Reid asked that park users who see violators take their photos and post them to social media websites. “We need to embarrass these people,” she said.

Really? We are now calling on local citizens to post photos of people who are littering, in an effort to subject them to public ridicule? Does she not see that the public outcry over some less-than-considerate park users may be a little lower than the public outcry over a riot?

I think we can all agree that it’s a good idea for everyone to follow the rules of basic human decency. When they don’t, we have systems in place to hold them accountable. If those systems aren’t working, then we need to fix them. But is it really OK for all of us to use our smart phones to act as some sort of public surveillance system? Is it really OK for us to seek to publicly shame each other over every infraction? Does it make us better people to ridicule others? And are we really so sure that we’re above reproach, ourselves?

That last point is really the one that sticks out for me. I am a rule-follower of the highest order. I don’t riot, or litter, or take more fish than I’m allowed to. I return other peoples’ shopping carts and try to do the right thing. But I’ve found myself with 12 items in the 10 items or less lane and shrugged it off. I may have picked my nose once or twice in my life, and I’ve faced embarrassing public meltdowns with a toddler. I don’t want someone else to snap photos in an effort to shame me into better behaviour in the future.

I think it’s possible to hold other people – and ourselves, for that matter – accountable, without resorting to bad behaviour of our own, or providing 24/7 surveillance of our fellow citizens.

What do you think? Do you think that public shaming is necessary and effective? And where do you draw the line? What sort of offense merits public shaming, and what sort doesn’t? I’d love to hear!

What Makes Canada Awesome

Let me start by wishing you all a very happy Canada Day! Today this great country of mine (or ours, if you happen to be Canadian as well) is 144 years old. Because on July 1, 1867 the British North America Act came into effect, uniting Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Province of Canada into a single nation.

A national holiday is a chance to gush effusively about your country. So I started thinking of the things that fill me with national pride. Some are unique, some not so much. But this isn’t about winning a contest, or comparing myself to the other person. It’s about loving the place that I call home just as it is, warts and all. So on Canada’s birthday, I present:

Things that Make Canada Awesome

Loving Canada Day
Photo credit: Yume Photo on Flickr

  1. We’re really freaking big. We cover 9,984,670 km2 or 3,854,085 sq mi, in fact.
  2. Our national anthem rocks.
  3. We believe in democracy.
  4. I don’t have to worry what it will cost when my kids need to see a doctor.
  5. Mr. Dressup rocks (and, FYI, he started life as an American).
  6. We welcome people from all over the world, and they enrich our country immeasurably.
  7. Our money is colourful. This makes it easy to see, at a glance, what denominations I have in my wallet.
  8. Our national animal is the beaver. Just think of the jokes that can be made! Which leads me to …
  9. Some of the funniest people in the world are Canadian. Sadly, I am not one of them.
  10. We have had a gender neutral definition of marriage for six years now, meaning that same-sex marriage is legal across the whole country. I am happy to report that my heterosexual marriage has not noticeably suffered.
  11. Cereal box French. Allow me to display mine: Gratuit! En prime! Nutritifs essentiels!
  12. One day, if all goes to plan, this gorgeous couple will be our King and Queen:

The Official Royal Wedding photographs
Photo credit: The British Monarchy on Flickr

So today, I celebrate my country. Long may it live. And wherever you happen to be, let me ask what makes your country awesome. Let’s share the love around!

Using Your Voice Wisely

It’s Thursday, so I’m Crafting my Life! This year, I’m just writing about whatever is currently on my mind. And if you would like to chime in and contribute a guest post about your own journey, please drop me a line and we’ll chat.

Before I get into my post for today, I am going to get this out of the way: I eat at McDonald’s. Not very often – probably about once every three months or so – but I go there. My kids eat there, too, and far more often than I do. A fast food meal out is their go-to treat when they spend time with their grandparents, which means they visit a couple of times a month, and I choose not to stress about it. The world is a complicated and nuanced place, and a person can hold an opinion and not always act in accordance with that opinion. Call it hypocrisy, call it cognitive dissonance, call it being human. I am willing to own it, and I am not about to pass judgment on anyone else who consumes the occasional fast food meal.

Now, on to my point. I am a proud member of the Green Moms Carnival. Yesterday, one of the other members sent an email to the group asking if there were any Canadian residents who would be interested in applying for one of three spots as a McDonald’s All-Access Mom. Her idea was that if one of those moms is environmentally conscious, they may be able to shine a light on behind-the-scenes practices at McDonald’s. I am pretty much the only Canadian resident in the group, so I checked it out.

Right after my email exchange with the Green Moms, I saw my friend Annie’s post about the All-Access Moms, complete with a video that shines a light on some of McDonald’s questionable business practices. If you’re not familiar with them, I recommend checking out Fast Food Nation, The Omnivore’s Dilemma or Food, Inc. But for right now, let me summarize my personal concerns with McDonald’s:

  1. A McDonald’s meal comes with a lot of disposable packaging which ends up in the landfill – or worse, on my front lawn.
  2. McDonald’s is constantly working to drive down the cost of their food, which means that their eggs and meat produced under inhumane conditions.
  3. Their food is not healthy – and it doesn’t even decompose.

If I applied to be one of the McDonald’s All-Access Moms, I could do so as a skeptic. In the unlikely event they actually chose me, I would tour their production facilities with a critical eye, and I would do my best to remain objective. Would I succeed? It’s hard to say. There’s a reason journalistic ethics require that reporters don’t receive gifts from the people they’re reporting on. When someone’s flying you around and treating you well, you’re naturally going to be inclined to like them. And when you like them, it’s hard to rip them to shreds when you write your article.

On top of that, I have to assume that some amount of care will go into what the moms get to see. They’re likely not going to be entering slaughterhouses, or talking to disaffected employees. They’re going to be presented with a polished and crafted image. It’s understandable, really. When I know that company’s going to be coming over, I clean my house, so that I’m giving the best possible impression. I’m sure that McDonald’s would do the same. When they’re showing what “really goes on” at McDonald’s, they’re going to show their best side.

There’s another factor at work here, too. The point of this exercise – like all PR exercises – is to generate positive publicity for McDonald’s. And one of they ways they do that is by partnering with moms, so that they can use their names and images. To continue the thought experiment, if I were accepted, and even if I did manage to maintain my objectivity and find some real answers to hard-hitting questions, in the process I would be lending my name to a company whose practices I don’t condone. Occasionally taking actions in my personal life that don’t conform with my highest ideals is one thing, but publicly promoting a brand I don’t believe in is quite another.

As a blogger, I have created a personal brand. I think of this, really, as just another way of saying that I have a reputation built around my personal platform. I view this platform as an almost sacred space, and I am very picky about who or what I talk about here. In part, this is to maintain my personal credibility and keep my blog from becoming a PR pitch machine. But an even bigger part comes from the journey I’m on to live a life that I’m comfortable with. If I don’t want to work in a job that doesn’t fit me, why would I use my platform in a way that doesn’t fit me? I want to live authentically, which means using my voice in a way that affirms my values rather than undermining them.

So, while part of me thinks it would be interesting to get a first-hand view of the fast food industry, even if only to see what they are and are not showing me, I’m not going to apply. If I don’t want to give McDonald’s the right to use my name and image, I’m not going to offer it to them. That’s my decision, and I will own it. Your decision may be different – and I respect that. But however you decide to use your voice, I hope that it affirms your life and conforms with your values.

Tell me, would you submit an application to be an All-Access Mom? Do you think you could maintain your objectivity when they wined you and dined you? And would you be comfortable with your name and image being used to promote a company whose practices you disagree with? I’d love to hear!

Midwifery, Birth and Maternity Care in BC and Beyond

I have been doing my podcast for a few months now. And the longer that I do it for, the more interview opportunities pop up. It’s like anything else – as you gain experience, you get better at doing something. So when I got a press release in my inbox letting me know that my birthday was the first ever BC Midwives’ Day here in British Columbia, and it concluded by letting me know that Ganga Jolicoeur, the Executive Director of the Midwives Association of BC, was available for interviews, I jumped.

I have had two midwife-attended births myself, and I am a great believer in the midwifery model of care. I appreciated the time that my midwives took with me, addressing my concerns, answering my questions and asking for my input. I felt empowered in birth, which was immensely valuable for me personally.

Once I connected with Ganga we couldn’t stop talking. I broke the interview into two parts to make it a little more manageable. In the first part, which is included in this post today, we talked about issues in maternity care, as well as other issues facing midwives, and the women they serve. Hint: we need more midwives! We also need more spaces for midwifery students.

During the interview I mentioned an article about birth in remote, Northern communities, and if you’re interested in birth it’s definitely worth a read. So be sure to check out Birthing at home: It takes a village
(which isn’t actually about homebirth, but birthing in your home community, which isn’t always possible for women in remote areas). It highlights a lot of the problems that people face when maternity care isn’t readily available to them. Midwifery care presents one possible solution to these complex situations.

If you’re interested in birth, babies and midwifery, you’ll want to listen to this interview. And you’ll also want to come back next week for the second part. Or subscribe to my podcast in iTunes, and make sure you don’t miss a thing!

Swimsuits and Six-Year-Olds

I like to think that I’m a fairly laid-back parent. When my daughter wants to run around wearing nothing but her underwear, I don’t freak out. When my kids do things that are a little dangerous, I stand back and let them learn their own lesson (although I do issue the occasional dire warning to placate my conscience). And I try to avoid making pronouncements about “Kids These Days” and how much harder I had it back in my day. Because, really, I grew up in the late 70s and 80s, things weren’t really that hard. Unless you consider having to wait in a bank line-up to withdraw money hard. Which, come to think of it, I do. Kids these days don’t know how good they have it! Back in my day …

Ahem.

Anyways, back to the point at hand. While I’m fairly laissez-faire in my parenting, when I took my kids shopping for new bathing suits all of my laid-back ways ran smack into the row of skimpy swimwear designed for six-year-old girls. There were many, many bikinis, and my daughter Hannah wanted one really quite a lot. She also liked the one piece suits with cut-outs on the sides. It became very clear to me almost immediately that Hannah and I were operating at cross-purposes. I wanted her to cover as much of herself as possible, and she wanted to cover as little of herself as possible.

June 1969
An example of a swimsuit with cut-outs on the sides (image courtesy of dovima_is_devine_II on Flickr)

I remember being Hannah’s age, and wanting to wear the same clothes that I saw teenagers wearing. If someone had gotten me six-year-old sized high heels and an itty bitty bikini I would have been all over it. This is what our culture says is attractive, after all, and I wanted to be attractive. Not sexually attractive, but pretty. And I can see that my daughter feels the same way. She just wants to wear the same stuff that adults get to wear, and which she views as aesthetically pleasing.

When we’re talking swimsuits it’s really easy for me to just pull the sun safety card and say that I want as much of my kid’s skin covered as possible so that she doesn’t burn and put herself at increased risk for skin cancer down the road. But the truth is that part of me would want my kid covered whether or not a sunburn was dangerous. As my daughter gets older, I become more concerned about the clothing she wears. I’ve seen baby-sized bikinis, and when an actual baby is wearing them, complete with baby rolls and a diaper, it’s just cute. But at some point, a bathing suit stops being just cute and starts being alluring.

Beach Ready Baby
It was much easier when she was this age (image courtesy of emerille on Flickr)

At six years old I wouldn’t say that my daughter’s clothing choices are intended to be alluring or attractive. But as soon as five or six years from now that could be a different story. And as my daughter sits roughly at the halfway mark between infancy and puberty, we’ve reached the point where public nudity is probably not really cute anymore. Especially because, more and more, I’m entrusting her to the care of others and allowing her greater freedom when we venture out in public. Some part of me feels like she’ll be safer if she’s thoroughly covered up.

I have mixed feelings about this reaction, though. On the one hand, I don’t want to blow my six-year-old’s fashion choices out of proportion. And for another, I don’t want to place the onus for avoiding attention of whatever kind on her. The truth is that she can wear whatever makes her comfortable. How other people react is their choice – including me. But on the other hand, I don’t appreciate that the bathing suit manufacturers of the world appear to be conspiring to sexualize my child, and I don’t want my daughter to think that she needs to wear a skimpy swimsuit to be beautiful.

Grandma and me - Aug 1983 - Dohez Beach
In my day photos were sort of yellowish and the swimsuits didn’t have cut-outs (image courtesy of sflovestory on Flickr)

In the end, I asked Hannah to choose a one-piece bathing suit without cut-outs. I may have played the sun safety card. She found one that she likes, and she picked out a matching hat. She wore it around the house all afternoon, pausing every so often to pose for me, so it’s clearly a hit. I’m glad that it’s a little girl suit for the little girl that she still is. I’m also glad that it’s big enough to fit her for a couple of years, so that I don’t have to face swimsuit shopping with my daughter again until at least 2013 or so. I could use a good long break before I have to face that again.

What about you? Have you ever run into the skimpy swimsuit issue with your own daughter? Do you think that bikinis on six-year-olds are fun or inappropriate? And have you noticed (as I did) that choosing a boy’s suit is ever so much easier? I’d love to hear!

Facebook: The Scourge of Modern Parenting?

Did you know that Facebook is the scourge of modern parenting – and modern motherhood in particular? There’s a new campaign that encourages mothers to turn off the social networking site and play with their kids. The campaign is called “The Log Off“, and it’s built entirely around a 47 second long YouTube video.

This is not the first example of backlash against moms who spend a lot of time on social networking sites. I’ve seen articles about parents ignoring kids in favour of their smart phones, and I’ve witnessed an uproar when a mother tweeted, asking for prayers as paramedics worked on her dying son. And while dads do face questions about balancing social media and family, I definitely feel that the censure is focused mostly in the direction of mothers. I think that Annie at PhD in Parenting would call this another example of blaming the mother.

In fairness, there are some extreme examples of parents who have let their social media use get in the way of sound parenting. The most egregious example is a mother who played a game on Facebook, leaving her 13-month-old alone in a full bathtub. The toddler drowned, and she was been sentenced to spend 10 years in prison. I think that pretty much any parent would agree that leaving a toddler alone in the tub for any reason is a phenomenally bad idea. And I would argue that this is an extreme example, which is not characteristic of the way most people use Facebook.

Maybe I feel a little bit defensive, though, because I am very active online, myself. I’m all over Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and Flickr. But I also think that I am an attentive and responsible parent. And I’m not sure sure that social media is particularly unique in terms of its parenting impact. Much of the discussion surrounding parents and social networking is simply a re-hashing of old ideas. In the 1980s when I was a kid, for instance, we might have exhorted those mothers in that video to turn off their soap operas to play with their kids. But this argument is much older than TV, even.

I am a Canadian, and I enjoy historical fiction. This means that as a child I read the entire Anne of Green Gables series by Lucy Maud Montgomery about 17 times. There’s an exchange in the fourth book, Anne’s House of Dreams, that echoes a lot of the sentiments you might hear about social media. Anne, her best friend Diana, and the much older neighbourhood busybody Rachel Lynde talk as they prepare for Anne’s wedding. Diana tells Anne she couldn’t have had a nicer day if she’d ordered it from Eaton’s. Here’s an excerpt:

“Indeed, there’s too much money going out of this Island to that same Eaton’s,” said Mrs. Lynde indignantly … “And as for those catalogues of theirs, they’re the Avonlea girls’ Bible now, that’s what. They pore over them on Sundays instead of studying the Holy Scriptures.”

“Well, they’re splendid to amuse children with,” said Diana. “Fred and Small Anne look at the pictures by the hour.”

I amused ten children without the aid of the Eaton’s catalogue,” said Mrs. Rachel severely.

Anne’s House of Dreams was first published in 1917, approximately 30 years after the first Eaton’s catalogue made its debut. So when the venerable Lucy Maud wrote this exchange, it was from the vantage point of someone looking back and reflecting on long-dead concerns. By the time 1917 rolled around, no one would have thought that the Eaton’s catalogue was going to be the death of the modern family. But underlying that exchange between Rachel Lynde and Diana, we see a lot of the same arguments that we see today about social media use.

And that, to me, is the crux of things. Social media is not unique, it is just another innovation that we are learning how to use. Can it be used to excess? Certainly. Is it going to rip our families apart and destroy any actual human connection? I would argue that it is not, just as previous innovations have not.

But let’s come back to that whole “you’re ignoring your kids!” argument. Because this is the accusation that underlies criticisms of parental social media use, or the mothers of the 1980s who were too busy watching All My Children to watch their own children, or the mothers of 120 years ago who were using that new-fangled Eaton’s catalogue as a babysitter. It’s at the heart of pretty much every guilt trip we level at mothers who do anything other than gaze lovingly at their progeny all day long. Are we ignoring our kids? And if so, is it actually harming them?

Research suggests that we are spending more time with our children than our parents spent with us. A UK study found that fathers averaged 32 to 36 minutes a day on their children in 2000, but just three to eight minutes in 1975, and mothers averaged 51 to 86 minutes a day with their kids in 2000, but just eight to 21 minutes a day in 1975. And this makes sense, if you think about the way that we restrict our children’s freedom today. When our mothers sent us outside to play until it got dark, they weren’t exactly engaging with us.

But I don’t think that leaving kids to their own devices is so terrible. Ignoring your children from time to time may teach them valuable skills, like how to entertain themselves. Of course, we need to be ever mindful of safety, but I don’t believe that letting my kids play in my fenced backyard while I watch them from my computer desk and write is negligence. I believe I’m just doing what parents have always done – caring for children while also going about the business of living to the best of my ability.

So you’ll all have to excuse me if I fail to feel phenomenally guilty for my Facebook use. I have enough guilt on my plate already, and I refuse to accept any more.

I wonder what you think. Do you think that Facebook and other social networking sites are the scourge of modern parenting? How do you set reasonable limits for yourself so that you’re not ignoring your kids too much? And do you think that ignoring your kids a little bit is good or bad for them? Please weigh in!

My Birth, Brought to you by Mead Johnson

This past weekend my mom gave me a bag full of papers from my childhood. It contained hand-prints I made when I was five, annoyingly perfect report cards from grade six and mementos from my birth lo these 35 years ago. There was a teeny-tiny hospital bracelet, which I believe you can catch a glimpse of on my right wrist in my official hospital photograph:

Newborn baby Amber

There was also the little card they taped inside my bassinet announcing that I was a girl. Back in the 1970s they really needed these things, because most babies spent their hospital stay in the nursery separated from their mothers. I did not. My own mother was ahead of her time, and insisted on rooming-in. We now know that keeping mothers and babies together gives them the best start, but at the time separation was commonplace.

My birth announcement
I was a girl!

It seems that marketing infant formula was fairly commonplace as well, as the fine print on the bottom of the announcement shows.

Sponsored by Mead Johnson
My birth info was sponsored by a formula company

I’ve shared my thoughts on formula marketing before, and you can click through and read that post if you want to hear all about it. Suffice it to say that research suggests that formula marketing, including formula company sponsorship of hospital materials and doctors, appears to have a negative impact on breastfeeding. In 1976 when I was born, less than 42% of US mothers initiated breastfeeding. I suspect that my little birth announcement is just one example of the widespread marketing of infant formula at the time.

My own mother breastfed me, but she tells me that she received little support from the doctors and nurses in the hospital. In fact, in at least one case she was met with total disbelief that she would do such a thing. She was able to stand by her decision, but had she encountered any serious difficulties, I’m not so sure she would have been able to find the support she needed to prevail.

Thankfully, the cards they taped to my own children’s bassinets (or, in the case of Jacob’s birth, handed to me as I was leaving the hospital four hours after he was born) were not supplied by any formula company.


My son Jacob’s announcement, no formula company involved

Of course, some words on a card aren’t going to make or break anyone’s breastfeeding relationship, as my own mother’s breastfeeding success shows. But broader societal attitudes, and the availability of good support and information, can absolutely make a difference. I think widespread acceptance of formula marketing reflects societal attitudes. My own formula-sponsored birth announcement from a time when breastfeeding was not highly-valued shows this. When formula sponsorship is removed, the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes is enforced and baby-friendly hospital policies are in place, mothers who want to breastfeed have the best chance of success. I happen to think that’s a good thing, and I hope that we continue to make progress.

What do you think? Am I totally blowing a single sentence on a single piece of paper out of proportion? Or do you agree that a formula company sponsoring hospital birth announcements is inappropriate? And what do your kids’ announcements look like? I’d love to hear!

Crafting Your Country

It’s Thursday and I’m Crafting my Life! Right now I’m hard at work, getting ready for the second run of the Crafting my Life course. The start date is coming up fast, so if you want to live with greater intention and purpose, sign up now. I’d love to have you along for the journey!

I talk a lot about taking steps to change my own life. Today I’d like to talk about using your voice to create broader change within a country. Here in Canada a federal election is taking place this coming Monday, May 2. The campaign signs that are blighting dotting the landscape remind me every time I step out of my house. The government has fallen (it sounds pretty exciting when you put it that way, huh?), and now we’re taking to the polls.

I am not going to tell you who to vote for. If you want to know more about where the major parties stand on family, parenting and women’s issues, visit Annie over at PhD in Parenting. She’s done an excellent job of compiling an overview. If you want to know more about your local candidates, check out your local paper, or search out your candidates online. If you look, you’ll find more info than you could ever want to know about the smiling-faced people who hope we’ll vote for them.

As for me, I honestly don’t care who you vote for. I have voted for every major party except the Bloc (since I don’t live in Quebec) at least once, and I remain pretty neutral. I can think of more reasons not to vote for any particular party than I can think of reasons to vote for them, and I doubt I’m the only person who feels this way. Looking at the historical voter turnout in Canada, the last few elections show a general downward trend. The last election had the lowest turnout ever, at 58.8% of registered voters. I suspect that the voter apathy is due, at least in some part, to not finding any candidate compelling enough to vote for, and being generally turned off by the tenor of the discussion.

But feeling underwhelmed by the options is not a good enough excuse not to vote. Unless you go into labour on Monday (like one of my friends did on voting day in 2008), you can drag yourself to the polling station. And when you’re there, forget strategy and who you think will win. Vote for the person or party that you think will best represent you. Because I think that if we all did that, we would see some actual political change.

Consider these two snazzy pie charts, showing the percentage of registered voters who chose each party in the last two elections:

As you can see, the “None of the above” party carried the last two elections by a wide margin. This number represents the percentage of people who didn’t vote. If they all showed up and voted, they could sweep an unknown party to power. They could, for instance, give the Communist Party or the Pirate Party or the Marijuana Party the biggest majority in Canadian history. If the Natural Law Party was still around, they could put those 7000 yogic fliers to work:

We know that the last couple of elections had low voter turnouts, and resulted in minority governments. But let’s pick a couple of examples with far higher voter turnouts and strong majorities. In 1984 the Conservatives won the most seats in Canadian parliamentary history. Here’s what the results from that election looked like:

The Conservatives managed to beat “None of the above” that year, but none of the other parties did. And with 37.7% of registered voters casting their ballot for the Conservatives, they still come second to “None of the above” in 2008 with 41.2%.

I didn’t crunch the numbers for every election, but I could find only one example where the ruling party won more than 41.2% of votes from registered voters. It was in 1958, when John Diefenbaker‘s Conservatives won the largest majority in Canadian history, with 42.6% of votes from registered voters.

As you can see, if those 41.2% of registered voters actually voted, they could totally change the election’s outcome. But voting “None of the above” won’t change a thing, because no matter how they dominate on voting day, they never get a single seat in parliament, and they never pass a piece of legislation. And, what’s more, I sometimes think certain politicians like it when we give “None of the above” our vote. It lets them continue doing whatever it is they’re doing without fear that we’ll call them on it. If we all showed up to vote instead, they’ll feel far more compelled to address the issues that matter to us. And we’re more likely to have a country that we can actually stand to live in.

So, please, take 20 minutes out of your day on Monday and vote. It’s fun, fast and free. And maybe together, we can make our leaders take notice. I think it’s our best shot.

How do you decide who to vote for? What issues are important to you in this election? And what do you think we can do to get people engaged in the political process? I’d love to hear!

Eggs, Colour and Ethics

Two years ago, I looked into the way that eggs are regulated and sold in Canada. We have a marketing board – the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency – and they’re responsible for managing the national egg supply. For real. And they’ve set up a system the encourages egg producers to have very large farms – the average has at least 10,000 birds. If you want to know more you can click on some of those links.

Most of the hens on these very large farms are housed in battery cages. The SPCA says that 95% of eggs are produced this way. Battery cages are very small, and many hens are placed together in a single cage. They don’t have room to lie down or stretch their wings, and their beaks may be trimmed in a painful procedure in order to keep them from harming one another. After about a year of laying production slows, and in Canada the hens are then sent to slaughter. In some countries they’re subjected to forced molting which involves immersing them in darkness and withholding food.

Because I have concerns about the way that battery hens are treated, I buy most of my eggs at my local farmers market. I can actually trust that the hens are handled humanely. When I buy my eggs at the grocery store I opt for free range eggs, but that isn’t always a guarantee of quality of life for the hens that laid them. I think that the best way to ensure that your food is ethical is to meet the person who produced it.

Eggs in three colours
Blue are from my farmers market, brown are organic and free range from the store, and white are conventional eggs

I run into a problem every year at around this time, though. Easter is coming up, and in order to make really pretty Easter eggs, you need white eggs. The colour of the egg depends on the breed of the chicken that laid it. It does not vary with the way that chickens are treated. But for some reason, organic and free range eggs are pretty much always brown, and eggs from battery hens are pretty much always white. There are exceptions, of course. I recently bought some really pretty bluish hen’s eggs at my farmers market, and I’ve heard that there are stores that carry organic and free range white eggs. But I haven’t seen any of them, myself.

I suspect that the colour difference has to do with marketing. We view food differently based on its colour. Brown eggs somehow seem more natural. White eggs seem cleaner and maybe even a little bit industrial. When white eggs were very popular, choosing brown as your colour when you produced organic and free range eggs set you apart. There could be practical considerations too, I suppose. Some producers carry both conventional and free range eggs, and the colour divide helps ensure that everything ends up in the right carton.

Easter eggs
The Easter eggs I dyed last year

Of course, I could colour brown eggs for Easter. I know people who have done that. But they don’t take on colour as well, and you can’t get the same pastel tones. There’s just something about those pinks and yellows and blues that makes me think of spring and Easter and all things hopeful. Once again, the colour of my food affects the way that I view it.

Maybe I should suck it up. Maybe I should accept that if I want ethical Easter eggs, they won’t be as pretty. I can understand that if there’s only one day a year when I actually want white eggs, that egg producers can’t really ramp up production just for me. Chickens produce at a constant rate, and we don’t want to bring a bunch of new hens into the world for a month just so that my Easter eggs can look good.

I’ll come clean and say that right now I have some conventional white eggs in my fridge. I plan to dye them with my kids. My daughter Hannah is really, really excited. She loves that they’re white, and she has grand plans to draw on some with her crayons. And I feel guilty, but apparently not enough to take a stand.

I wonder what you think. How do you choose your eggs? And would you pass up white eggs for Easter for ethical reasons? Please tell me!

Related Posts with Thumbnails