The discussion goes, according to "Women in Politics: Still Searching for an Equal Voice", is that "women have rarely held positions of political leadership." and that other countries like Sweden "has enjoyed gender balanced parliaments for over a decade" as if it was a privilege. The real problem isn't about how many women or men there are that runs a country or a political system, but more about the attitude that the society have towards that countries's leaders.

I personally can't care less about the hormone ratios of those running the country or whether or not they have an extra piece of unrelated organic part in between their legs. What matter is who they are as a person and how they run the place, is the candidate best suited for the position they run for? Is the candidate most qualified, that's the real values to look at, not the amount of male to female percentage that matter.

Obviously having a more sexually and racially diversified group political figures have their advantages, but like I stated before, problems are not coming from the fact that there aren't enough women politicians, but whether still evaluate them by their "looks, clothing, relationships, and the tone of their voices..." It's about time we change as a society on the way we see and value our women.

Even the media, those who influenced a great deal on how our community perceive public figures, proclaimed unfair comments and images about female politicians according to the article "recently, a Fox news commentator proclaimed Hillary Clinton was losing the male vote because of her nagging tone of voice stating." Not that Fox news were of any credible source to be taken seriously in the media world, still it proves that the attitude we have towards different gender are questionable and unethical.

Of course the truth still stands that the general perception of politic is a thing "men do" but that will change over time as more and more women prove themselves worthy of the responsibilities of the office. Albeit a long and painstaking process it shall be, much like Kim Campbell, Canada's first and only female Prime Minister once said: "..., if women are never in certain roles, then we think it's almost unnatural for them to be in those roles." But really, is gender the real qualification factor to decide whether or not someone's actually capable. If so then I have lost all hope for humanity as a whole and in the political and legislation system in specific.

However with that being said, the real problem isn't about how many women are a parliament member or the percentage of that against men, sure it is one way to slowly change the perception of female politicians but that isn't the real issue that needs addressing.


Jun. 16th, 2014 01:48 am
Us human, we take great pride in who we are and where we come from, the nationalism, patriotism is a sensitive subject. In actuality we might not be very different but the somehow that concept of identity holds so much meaning and strength to those entitled.

Thomas Kings's short story, "Borders" touches on the subject mentioned above from a kid's point of view, that age of understanding and soaking in new ideas and comprehension like a sponge, not nearly a blank slate, but young enough to not have his perception fully formed. In his short story, Thomas Kings reveal the true borders of the human mind and generation gap. Under the author's point of view, the action of his sister represent a younger, bold, and highly independent individual who wished to see the world and travel away from her home town while his mother, having a more traditional, classic left wing school of thought constantly stated "We got everything here."

The real border isn't really between Canada and America, in his mother's mind, she and her kids were Blackfoot, doesn't matter where they come from and that their true origin, nationality and identity were Blackfoot. Readers could see vivid disregard of official, legal regulations that were applied upon the woman's mind although never actually put to word throughout Thomas's writing. While the kid himself "could have told them" that they were "from the Canadian side" unlike his mother who were completely against conforming to the officials.
From my very own personal perspective, the idea of moral differ from person to person, let alone cultures, and the very standard in which we pose against ourselves as a guideline on how we should behave are based upon the unspoken rules of the society we live in.

That being said, things change, societies change, the way we see things and how we react against them changes as well, nowaday people with the nicer, more tamed good behaving attitude are considered somewhat "mellow" and "boring". Though it's true that women don't want to be victimized as mere meat packages walking about the face of the earth for men's sheer sexual satisfaction. But then again, are they really not interested in all the attention they are getting? Isn't that the final result of all the violence and trouble making?

- Look! - girl number 1 said

- What?! - girl number 2 answered

- I think boys really like violence and hell, what's more attractive than a pair kitty cat with bouncing body parts jump about fighting each other? We'll be famous among the guys! - girl number 1 continued

So instead of being victimized passively, they are still a product of a male dominant society, twisted in their own sexual divine intervention, used to rule their little men's world, very much like the early days of man kind where the females are the leaders of the pack. I don't think it is simply a repellant mechanism, to avoid being seen as victims but more of rebellious acts against the ideology of how girls should behave with all the womanly etiques, supported much by the understanding of men's attraction and interest towards violence and the opposite sex.

Though these baviours can be harmful, they are not necessarily bad, we can't simply force every women on the planet to act, feel and express themselves the same way, some just have a very different point of view about their sexual prowess. As stated above, societies change, social standards will change and so will moral codes, from a utilitarian perspective it is just fine to have diversities in the selections of "walking meat packages" just as long as they don't cause any harm towards any other human being male or female alike.
I'm not good with puns, I'll have you know that much about me, and I over do sarcasm, sometimes too obvious that it appears as if I'm putting too much effort in grabbing attention, which is...also true.

Now you're hooked, because why would somebody out of the blue confesses a number of major items in his insecurity list. Sometimes you wish that you yourself wouldn't have any insecurity, but hey who are we lying to but only ourselves.

Now that was me trying to establish an emotional connection, something you can relate to and be sympathetic about. Ethos, my favourite persuasive rhetorical tool for its flexibility and motivating nature.

A simple emotional attachment could turn a mundane, boring, last on the list job into a work of art. Remember that task or project that was super hard to even get a start on and you were never able to find the right moment, the right place and time or idea in order to get the wheels rolling. And then something sparks that untapped brain juice named emotion: your relative passed away with you promising them a successful project, your significant other proposed and you need to make sure a happy, comfortable life style for the two of you in the future which require that you complete this project with flags flying high.

Whichever it is, a little shove goes a long way, many might disagree, but drama is what we crave and yes, we ALL do (looking at the dudes). Different people just have different scripts that they like and roles that they want to play in said script and once the opportunity arise we have the urge to push ourselves.

Well written about a country in needs, Stephen Lewis realize the value of Ethos and incorporated it fairly well with his writings about a once on the rise to prosper and success continent of Africa now kneeling in its down fall from HIV.
One must ask why Jonathan Swift is so misanthropic after reading his "modest proposal". Such cruel and barbaric of an idea, expressed through utmost confidence, proposed to be the solution to Ireland's social issues in the early 1700. However one must also realize that by taking such a cynical, dark and gruesome approach to solving these issues, Swift is purposefully pointing out the ridiculous and terrifying nature of the situation at the time. It is critical of him to use satire in this very proposal.

Many had different opinions about this particular piece for its over the top, outrageous attempt at verbal irony in order to call attention to the situation. He could have simply written an essay somewhere along the line of "Britain you stink, and here's why:..." and then goes on listing 10 different things and issues that are being caused by the British government as harsh and inhumane control policies over Ireland. But what would his reader's reaction be, they would read it, probably agree with it since they suffer what was listed on a day to day basis, and then move on with their lives because there aren't any discussions or suggestions going on.

Also, being an economist of some sort himself, he structured his writing around factual evidence to support his idea, making it sound plausible by the end of it. He first started off with simply stating the issues and his one-size-fit-all solution to them. Then he went onto the details of every issues from the most prominent ones such as economic and population problem to the tiny little ones like domestic violence and family planning and clearly state out how simply "eating babies and using them as an extra resource" would solve all of it. By being so ridiculous and absurd but at the same time plausible and logical, he made his point in how horrible it was for the Irish workers.

In addition to that, he used his crazy argument as a pivot point to ridicule the other simpler solutions out there that could have also solved the problems a long time ago but because of greed, pride and the absence of empathy and sympathy.

If you were the target of this proposal, those in control, responsible and capable of changing the situation of Ireland at the time, how would you feel after reading this text?
As an interaction and a self defense mechanism to the outside world, our brain act as a speculating machine that pick up information on the fly whether we want to or not. The moment you are introduced to a new idea, subject, something you've never heard of and are in the process of figuring out its true nature, you start to collect, sort, organize and fill in the blanks. The collection and organization of information about a particular subject wouldn't be so bad, given that the source of the information are legitimate, however inadequate information could also lead to misleading comprehension of said subject.

There's an old folk lore about 5 blind men, who have never before seen an elephant but then one day as they were having a stroll a circus passed by and they decided that this was a once in a life's time to finally be able to examine and understand what an elephant was like. So each of them took turn to examine the circus's elephant, the first of five man concluded that an elephant was much like a fan since he examined only its ears. The second of them argued that it was more like a large pole since he only felt the elephant's leg. The third, after a moment of touching the elephant's tail, thought to himself that it was more or less a type of worm. The forth man decided that elephant was simply a name for a very exotic rot since he only grabbed the animal's trunk. And the last of them debated that the animal was hard as a rock after having examined one of its tusk. Needless to say they had a big fight about it, blaming each other for close mindedness and stupidity. Obviously none of them got the right idea of what an elephant was like and the fight itself was meaningless.

The story above mockingly illustrate the danger of not having the overall picture and seeing things from only one perspective, what's worse is the close minded, self loving ideology and pride in one's intellectual and experiential capability that lead to ignorant and denial of any new information that goes against the initial introduced concepts. This was very well planned, presented and executed in both "The Letter from Birmingham Jail" and "The Danger of a Single Story" Ted Talk.

However, let's not forget that was only the inception of inadequate information, I did mention that our brain act as a speculation machine, and by that I mean that subconsciously we will use the information given to us to complete the profile of the subject matter, even with insufficient information we will come up with speculations, guesses, prediction however biased depends on the previously received data.
Nikiforuk must have hated oil to his guts at the time of writing this article. Or he's being paid to write it, one way or another, there's no way a conscience man with bills to pay and mouths to feed would go about writing such details on a problem that wouldn't even come close to concerning his son's generation, let alone his life.

Okay, I'll lay off the mockery tone, but hey, that's what Andrew uses himself whilst writing "Canada's curse". To be fair, he wasn't wrong, but if one were to think about it, how many people out there actually care enough to read this lengthy article, understand it and then go about doing something to change the situation? It is obvious that Andrew Nikiforuk was against oil production and consumption, but he's not seeing things from other perspectives, or at least that's what his writings sounded like, a one way train of thought that takes you straight to Green Town.

I am sure enough to bet on it that the majority of people (those educated enough to read and understand the article itself) knew about the consumption of fossil fuel and its negative effects, or environmental footprints it leaves behind. The point is, one additional article about the negativity of oil, tar sands and all the like isn't going to rise people's awareness by much any more, diminishing returns apply here too and not only to the amount of steam required to melt bitumen. Although the information and statistics were well researched, organized and presented, the dryness also comes along with the package and even with the help of numerous imagery to keep things interesting and extend reader's attention span, it adds a tone of mockery so obvious that it backfire and instead of being funny, convincing and persuasive, it feels as if the author is trying too hard to make fun of the situation in order to win the reader's vote.

In all seriousness, writing about how to change the situation or spending time researching about solutions or a renewable, recycle-able, sustainable form of energy would be more worthwhile. One could then pitch the idea to an investor (or a group of investors, I'm looking at you, Dragons) with a reasonable initial investment and an emphasis on the long term, sustainable business and monopoly.


Duy Nguyen

June 2014

8910 11121314
15 1617 18192021


RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 03:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios