A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ...

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ...
enough money within her control to move out
and rent a place of her own,
even if she never wants to or needs to...
something perfect to wear if the employer,
or date of her dreams wants to see her in an hour...

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ...

a youth she's content to leave behind....
a past juicy enough that she's looking forward to
retelling it in her old age...
a set of screwdrivers, a cordless drill, and a black lace bra...
one friend who always makes her laugh... and one who lets her cry...

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ...
a good piece of furniture not previously owned by anyone else in her family...
eight matching plates, wine glasses with stems,
and a recipe for a meal,
that will make her guests feel honored...

A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ...
a feeling of control over her destiny...
how to fall in love without losing herself..

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
how to quit a job,
break up with a lover,
and confront a friend without;
ruining the friendship...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
when to try harder... and WHEN TO WALK AWAY...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
that she can't change the length of her calves,
the width of her hips, or the nature of her parents..
that her childhood may not have been perfect...but it's over...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
what she would and wouldn't do for love or more...
how to live alone... even if she doesn't like it...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
whom she can trust,
whom she can't,
and why she shouldn't take it personally...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
where to go...
be it to her best friend's kitchen table...
or a charming Inn in the woods...
when her soul needs soothing...

EVERY WOMAN SHOULD KNOW...
What she can and can't accomplish in a day...
a month...and a year...

REMEMBER:

GOOD FRIENDS ARE LIKE STARS.

YOU DON'T ALWAYS SEE THEM,

BUT YOU ALWAYS KNOW THEY ARE THERE!!!!!!

But A Single Drop of Rain

Where, oh where, would I be without my car?  Without my vroom, vroom, beep, beep?  Trapped at home, of course.  And living in (at least a semi) rural area, that would most definitely not be good. 

Tell me that I can't drive but we need milk, eggs and cheese and, later, after I take your head off, I will let you know in no uncertain terms that you can damm well get the groceries yourself. 

The kids need to be picked up? Do it yourself. 

Tell me I really should get out there and do something to help support the family and ... Yeah, you get the picture.

Of course, I couldn't even imagine hearing such foolishness in the first place.  Let alone listening to it. What are you? Nuts or something?  Get out of the way.  That's my car, bought and (some day it will be) paid for.

So which is it? Have I grown up in a culture of entitlement or are those countries where women aren't "allowed" to drive stuck in the dark ages?  Maybe even the pre-dark ages?  Yeah, I'm not even gonna dignify that one with an answer.

And yet, given all the atrocities of how women are treated in Saudi Arabia, apparently some would ask if this is the battle that should fought at the moment.

To which I reply ... Hell if I know. But who are we even think we have the right to judge that?

I mean I can't even begin to imagine what life must be like for women over there. True, the driving issue may not be the sexiest one of the lot but you and I aren't over there fighting any of those of other battles, are we?

I think we have to trust the women who live there, those that have the courage, the connections and the strength of their convictions to judge and decide what issue might be the tipping point for "the Kingdom". 

Yes, I know this very same thing was tried four years ago without results. Or at least not what you and I might consider results. It's easy enough to argue, perhaps quite legitimately, that the only "result" achieved by in 2007 was to scare women back into compliance. 

But that was a different time.  And we don't know what has and is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps, just perhaps, this time things will be different. 

After all, as a wise woman once said, the "rain starts with a single drop".

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

~ Margaret Mead

Water Water Everywhere?

Once upon a time.

Once upon a time, I use to be heavily involved in international development issues, particularly as they related to children.  Yup, that's my catch, children.  Always has been, likely always will be.

But in my pre-disability days, before I knew what an IPP was, long before I had ever heard of a Program Planning Team (let alone knew that I was to be a member of many) ... I was involved with a group called Results Canada.

Results (they are active in many countries around the world including Australia, Germany, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom and the United States) is a volunteer political action group dedicated to "creating the political will to end global poverty and needless suffering, and to demonstrating that individuals make a difference when they exercise their political influence".  It was pure political advocacy work - coordinating a media strategy; letters, letters and more letters to newspapers and politicians; community outreach and fundraising to keep the mostly volunteer organization going.

It was good work, work where you felt you might just be making a difference in the world.  I once had a politician ask me why I, personally, was involved in this work.  I walked him to my office and silently pointed to the picture on my desk of my then 3-month-old child. Enough said.  He got it.

Can one person really make a difference? Yes, I believe they can.  And how many times is that difference magnified when that one person works in unison with others of a like mind?

But life took over - a challenged child with a significant health issue sucked up much of my time and emotional and mental energy.  And as she grew (particularly as she got closer to school age), I realized that a person can only do so much.  And it seemed that there was much I could and should be doing to help others right here in my own Province.  I still supported (and continue to support) what Results is trying to accomplish but my political activity shifted much closer to home as I focused on assisting challenged children and their families navigate our province's educational and community services, to ensure that they had access to the services they are entitled to.

But then I received an email last week - an email "reminding" me that this year's Blog Action theme is water - access to clean water in developing countries, the over-consumption of water in developed countries, water and the environment and "water solutions".  One item in particular in that list struck a chord in me - and you might just guess why based on my previous involvement with Results.

One of the many issues we dealt with at Results was access to clean water - can there be any more basic a need?  Monthly actions and ongoing campaigns were picked based on strategic opportunity, political climate, context, and impact and issues were usually ones where there was a proven, cost-effective solution and for which there are not many champions.  Issues like child and maternal health, sanitation and hygiene, primary education and microfinance - that last of which is an amazing subject, by the way, well deserving of its own post. Perhaps for another day.


Did You Know?
Did you know that unsafe drinking water and lack of sanitation kills more people every year than all forms of violence, including war?  Water, or rather lack thereof, causes 42,000 deaths each week.

That more people have access to a cell phone than to a toilet? Today, 2.5 billion people lack access to toilets. This means that sewage spills into rivers and streams, contaminating drinking water and causing disease.

That every day, women and children in Africa walk a combined total of 109 million hours to get water? They do this while carrying cisterns weighing around 40 pounds when filled in order to gather water that, in many cases, is still polluted.

That it takes 6.3 gallons of water to produce just one hamburger? That 6.3 gallons covers everything from watering the wheat for the bun and providing water for the cow to cooking the patty and baking the bun.

That the average North American uses 159 gallons of water every day – more than 15 times the average person in the developing world? From showering and washing our hands to watering our lawns and washing our cars, we use a lot of water. To put things into perspective, the average five-minute shower will use about 10 gallons of water. No wonder the Navy doesn't allow Hollywood showers!

While these facts may be grim, there is hope for real solutions as more and more people around the world are waking up to the clean water crisis. Earlier this year, the UN declared access to clean water a human right and groups like charity: water and Water.org continue to work tirelessly to bring water access to the developing world.

No, I am not advocating that we all dress in ashes and sackcloth and repent for our sin of living in an industrialized country.  I know I'm not going to anyway!

What I am suggesting is awareness - it's been a long time since I, myself, have turned my mind to these issues on anything approaching a regular basis and when I looked today at the statistics on how many children die every day from lack of primary health care and clean water or for the want of simple and cost-effective interventions such as breastfeeding, prevention of mother-to child transmission of HIV, immunization, micro-nutrients, and oral rehydration therapy to treat diarrhea .... it makes me very very sad.  It reminds me of just how lucky my family and I are.  And it turns my mind back to the obligation we, who have so much, have to those who have so little.

Margaret Mead is famous for the words, "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”  

Whether we work in concert with those of like mind (be it paid or volunteer), teach and remind our children that there is a much, much bigger world than that they can see from their back yard or direct our attention on occasion to those charities with a proven track record of dealing successfully with some of the most basic of human needs around the world, I believe know we all have a part to play.

One Flaw in Women *

Women have strengths that amaze men.....
They bear hardships and they carry burdens,
But they hold happiness, love and joy.

They smile when they want to scream.
They sing when they want to cry.
They cry when they are happy
And laugh when they are nervous.

They fight for what they believe in.
They stand up to injustice.
They don't take "no" for an answer
When they believe there is a better solution.

They go without so their family can have.
They go to the doctor with a frightened friend.

They love unconditionally.

They cry when their children excel
And cheer when their friends get awards.
They are happy when they hear about
A birth or a wedding.

Their hearts break when a friend dies.
They grieve at the loss of a family member,
Yet they are strong when they
Think there is no strength left.

They know that a hug and a kiss
Can heal a broken heart.

Women come in all shapes, sizes and colors.

They'll drive, fly, walk, run or e-mail you
To show how much they care about you.

The heart of a woman is what
Makes the world keep turning.

They bring joy, hope and love.
They have compassion and ideas.
They give moral support to their
Family and friends.

Women have vital things to say
And everything to give.

HOWEVER, IF THERE IS ONE FLAW IN WOMEN,
IT IS THAT THEY FORGET THEIR WORTH.

Please pass this along to all your women friends and relatives to remind them just how amazing they are.

H/T to Eileen

* Not to offend the other half of my readership but ... if you can come up with a good one for men, I promise to post it!

And Just How Do We Honour the Victims?

"In Canada all girls and women are equal to men under the law and have the right to live free from violence and abuse."

Rona Ambrose, Minister responsible for the status of women

Let's a few minutes and talk about a practice called "honour killings".

That's right, honour killings - “murders carried out in order to cleanse the family name and restore the family honour.”

You can read some real horror stories surrounding honour killing (as if the practice, in and of itself, is not horrific enough) if you're so inclined, including the story of a 16-year-old mentally retarded girl who, after being raped was turned over to her tribe's judicial council in Pakistan. Where, even though the crime was reported to the police and the perpetrator was arrested, it was decided that she "had brought shame to her tribe". She was killed in front of a tribal gathering.

Then there's the story of Samia Imran, whose murder in broad daylight, was abetted by her mother (a doctor) and occurred in the office of a prominent Pakistani lawyer and the UN reporter on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions.

Right, doesn't that have echoes of the United Nations electing Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest"?

But let's put that little unpleasantness aside for the moment and return to the subject at hand, shall we?

You remember, honour killings.

Unfortunately, Canada is not immune.

16-year-old Aqsa Parvez might be the most widely talked about [you can read Asqua's entire story here] case of honour killing in Canada but she is far from the first.

A 14-year-old female rape victim is strangled to death in March 2004 by her father and brother because she has supposedly tarnished the family name.

In April 2004, a man brutally kills his wife and daughter after finding out that his brother had previously molested them.

A teenage girl with a Turkish background has her throat cut by her father after he learns she has a Christian boyfriend.

Which brings us to the question - should "honour killing" be added as a separate criminal offence in Canada?

For better or for worse, apparently, that's the latest politcal buzz.

Following the release of a report from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (whoever the heck they are) this week entitled "Culturally-Driven Violence Against Women: A growing problem in Canada’s immigrant communities", Rona Ambrose, the minister responsible for the status of women, publicly stated that the government is "looking at" adding "honour killing" as a separate charge to the Criminal Code.

Apparently, she also "affirmed" the federal government's "zero-tolerance stance" against "honour killing," declaring such "barbaric cultural practices" as "heinous abuses" that have no place in Canadian society.

That whole zero tolerance thing kind of makes sense I suppose - considering Canada already has (as do all other civilized countries) a law or two on the books that tend to kick in whenever someone ends up "killing" somebody else. Yeah, that whole "killing" thing might just get you a raised eyebrow or two in some circles. It's all so ... distasteful, you know.

But, yeah, that whole idea that maybe honour killing would become a separate charge under the Criminal Code - they sort of backpedalled on that, really rather quickly, I would say.

She was asked if the government was considering such changes, and she replied that it was under consideration.

"I'll say that it's something that we're looking at," she said. "Nothing more than that at this time."

However, when contacted for more details about possible changes, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice said in fact, that is not the case.

"There are currently no plans to do that," said Pamela Stephens.

"While we're always interested in new input into ways to improve the Criminal Code, currently honour killing suggests a certain motive or conduct. But regardless of the motive the law as it exists in Canada is clear that intentional killing is murder, regardless of the motive."

Quite frankly, the idea of making "honour killing" an entirely separate criminal offence seems a little over the top to this tired little legal mind.

We already have provision for culpable homicide, murder (both first and second degree) and manslaughter. We deal separately with "contracted murder", "murder of a peace officer", death caused when a person is committing or attempting to commit a hijacking, sexual assault, kidnapping, criminal harassment, terrorist activity or intimidation and death caused "for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization".

Yeah, I think we pretty much got it covered. Don't you?

But where it might make more sense to make special provision for "honour killings" in our criminal justice system is in sentencing.

Under the so-called "hate crimes" amendments made to the Criminal Code in 1996, Canada considers evidence that an offence was "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor" to be an aggravating factor in sentencing. As is evidence that the offender abused their spouse or common-law partner, abused a person under the age of eighteen years or abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim.

Which, although I suppose one or two of the above would no doubt be covered off under most honour killings anyway, why not just find some way to wordsmith honour killings (or any offence motivated by a desire to cleanse a family name and restore the family honour) in there while we're at it?

It's true enough that some among us will be appalled dare we do anything, including even dare to use the term "honour killing".

So where, exactly, would that leave us - trying to convince ourselves that honour killing isn't culture specific (that, you see, would be an example of "racial profiling") and that education would be “patronizing,” as the practice (if we are allowed to even call it that) is just part of the larger problem of crime and violence in general? Or, perhaps, just another example of garden-variety "domestic violence"?

We can bury our heads in the sand all we wish, I suppose. But that does nothing to assist (or honour - what a strange use of words) those women (many just in their teens) who are being murdered by their own families right here in Canada.

Including the fact that a murder is an honour killing as an aggravating factor in sentencing might well be only "symbolic", as some suggest.

But at least it will symbolize something.

At least it should get more Canadians talking about the issue.

At least, we will be taking one small first step forward in trying to ensure that Minister Ambrose's words actually mean more than paper they're written on - that in Canada all girls and women are equal to men under the law and have the right to live free from violence and abuse.

Sounds nice, doesn't it?

IRONY is TOO small a Word

For this.

Because they've got to be joking, right?

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.

After all, these guys are just shining examples of enlightenment when it comes to issues of gender equality and the advancement of women, right? They're like, what ... leaders in the field?

Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," said the respected cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi.

Earthquakes? You've gotta be kidding.

I be thinking that the only 'earthquakes' that might be caused by women "who do not dress modestly" would most likely be found under the clerics' robes. Not in the earth's crust.

Perhaps it's so rare that they just can't tell the difference?

Then again, what do I know? After all, I'm just another piece of male property, right?

The Beginning of the End?

* Updated Below*

I fear that we are in danger of losing our mission. I really think that at this point Canada could be in danger of completely losing popular support for its mission in Afghanistan.

It's not like the polls were looking stellar before this.

Last month, an Angus Reid poll found that almost half of Canadians would end our role in Afghanistan before 2011 (the scheduled pull-out date) if the choice were up to them. In the online survey, 48 per cent of respondents wanted the bulk of the troops currently deployed in Afghanistan to be withdrawn before 2011, 35 per cent would continue until the end of the mission in 2011, and only seven per cent believe Canadian soldiers should remain in Afghanistan after 2011.

And now?

Now, even I, in the die-hard 7% group apparently (which, by the way, I don't quite buy, I think the actual number of Canadians who would support Canada staying in Afghanistan after 2011 would be somewhat higher than that) have begun to question what, exactly, we think we are doing there.

The way I see it, we went to Afghanistan for both selfish and humanitarian reasons. To prevent the country from becoming another hot-bed for terrorists who threaten not just our way of life, but our very lives. And, equally as important, to help the Afghan people rebuild and gain control of their country. To help put them in a position to live a better life. To help improve the life of women who have lived for years in conditions that Canadian women can barely fathom.

Not to perpetuate a society where it would be illegal for women to refuse to have sex with their husbands. Not to perpetuate a society which requires women to get approval from a male relative in order to leave the house.

You've got to be kidding.

Yes, I understand there are "cultural and religious differences" between life in Canada and life in Afghanistan. I equally understand that "cultural and religious differences" can easily be used as a cover for other intents and purposes. Intents and purposes which Canada simply cannot, in good conscience, be part of.

Yes, it's complex. We said we would give them democracy. And shouldn't democracy include the right to make their own decisions, form their own laws? Maybe so, but it doesn't mean that we have to be a part of it.

If that is the choice their 'democratically elected' government makes, then we need to seriously consider our continued presence in Afghanistan and take a serious look at what options are open to us. I don't see how staying and supporting such a government can result in anything less than tainting our soldiers, our government, ourselves. Making us equally guilty.

Apparently, my fellow Canadians agree.

A survey by The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima suggests 40 per cent of Canadians support the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan. But should the family law code be enacted, the poll suggests opposition to the mission would rise to roughly 75 per cent.

I am well aware that international outrage has forced the Afghan government to promise a review of the proposed law. A review that is expected to take two to three months, likely postponing the law's enactment until after the presidential election in August. And then?

Then, if such a law is still "on the table", so to speak, Canada must take a stand. I may not be entirely sure what the *right* thing to do is but I do know that we cannot simply keep doing what we are doing. Not in those circumstances.

Update: It's nice to see that it's not just us *foreigners* protesting the passage of this law. And that Afghan women are actually willing to speak truth to power.

Although I must say that taking the position that the legislation, which has already been approved by both houses of Parliament and signed by the President, is not yet law because it has yet to be published in the government’s official register is a bit of stretch, don't you think?

H/T to Neptunus Lex for the update

The Girls In My Circle

When I was little,
I used to believe in the concept of one best friend,
and then I started to become a woman.
And then I found out that if you allow your heart to open up,
You will be shown the best, in many friends.

One friend is needed when you're going through things with your partner.
Another friend is needed when you're going through things with your parents.
Another will sit beside you in the bleachers as you delight in your children and their activities.
Another when you want to shop, share, heal, hurt, joke,

or just be.

One friend will say, "Let's cry together,"
another, "Let's fight together,"

another, "Let's walk away together."
One friend will meet your spiritual need,
another your shoe fetish,
another will be with you in your season of confusion,
another will be your clarifier,
another the wind beneath your wings.

But whatever their assignment in your life,
on whatever the occasion,
on whatever the day,
or wherever you need them to meet you with their gym shoes on and hair pulled back,
or to hold you back from making a complete fool of yourself ....
those are your best friends.

It may all be wrapped up in one woman,
but for many, it's wrapped up in several...
one from 6th grade,
one from high school,
some from the college years,
a couple from old jobs,
on some days your mother,
on some days your neighbor,
on others, your sisters, cousins,
and on some days, your daughters.

This was sent to my by a very special friend and it struck me that there's an awful lot of truth in it. It also made me think, not 'just' of my woman friends, but that someone could easily write something similar for the friends they've met in blogging. Not me, of course. I'm not that talented. But the thought is there.

So here's to all my woman friends. And my blogging friends. Cheers.