Belleville, Ontario, police Chief Cory McMullan suffered a broken arm in an incident one week ago. She says she was the victim of domestic violence, but it is likely that it was simply an 'incident,' using police terms, and not the kind of violence against women that so many women in society have to endure, due to powerlessness in their home circumstances. One has to wonder what her retired 53-year old husband has experienced himself, in this new kind of society where men are more likely to leave work early, while the wife continues the family career.
Mrs McMullan apparently stated that, "given her position in the community, 'it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim' " (Belleville police chief victim, CBC, Aug 11, 2010). But it may well have been that there were two victims in this case. It is hard to believe that the husband, retired police officer Dave McMullen, would use violence intentionally to try to control his police chief wife. If this was a situation of domestic violence, it wasn't the traditional kind that many wives experienced before they gained financial independence in their lives.
In my comment submitted to the CBC online article, at 8:53 am ET Aug 13, I wrote the following:
Eliza Doolittle writes, "I suggest we wait until the other side of the story is told before jumping to any conclusions."
The problem here is that her arm got broken, and in our society, that kind of violence is usually the deciding factor in any cases of abuse. Psychological, emotional, sexual, or economic abuse is less likely to be recognized, particularly as is applies to men being victimized. Our society has changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years, with women often working past the time when their husbands retire. We don't know the situation here, but we do know how difficult it can be for any man who retires at an early age. The woman, Cory McMullan, has apparently stated, "it is important to acknowledge that I am the victim." Like many women of today, and men of yesteryear, it may be difficult for her to see that there might be another side to the story.
END OF COMMENT
Belleville Police Chief speaks out as a domestic abuse victim
By Natalie Stechyson and Adrian Morrow, Toronto and Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-police-chief-speaks-out-as-a-domestic-abuse-victim/article1671473/
Belleville police chief victim of 'domestic incident'
The Canadian Press
CBC News
August 11, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/08/11/ot-belleville-chief.html
Belleville’s abuzz over police chief as victim of domestic violence
By Carola Vyhnak, Staff Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 12, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/846418--belleville-s-abuzz-over-police-chief-as-victim-of-domestic-violence
Domestic Violence’ narratives: the murders of Lois Mordue and Dave Lucio
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
June 9, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/06/domestic-violence-narratives-murders-of.html
Ontario police chief says she was victim of domestic abuse
By QMI Agency
canoe.ca
Aug 11, 2010
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/11/14989296.html
Public life, public victim
By Joseph Brean
Financial Post
Aug. 12, 2010
http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/Public+life+public+victim/3388045/story.html
no longer available through this link
Added Aug 24, 2010
Belleville Mayor denies affair with police chief
Carola Vyhnak, Urban Affairs Reporter
Toronto Star
Aug 23 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/851519--belleville-mayor-denies-affair-with-police-chief?bn=1
Belleville mayor denies having affair with police chief
By W. Brice McVicar, QMI Agency
Peterborough Examiner
Aug 24, 2010
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2726196
Belleville mayor denies rumours of affair with police chief
By Adrian Morrow, Belleville
Globe and Mail
Aug. 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/belleville-mayor-denies-rumours-of-affair-with-police-chief/article1682780/
available online through Globe&Mail
links updated April 11, 2012
Showing posts with label life cycle development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label life cycle development. Show all posts
30 July 2010
Motherhood, aging, and resentful adult children: Shirley Anderson's story
Updated Jan 1, 2013
Feb 3, 2013 - Edited and 4 additional references added
Shirley Anderson is suing her adult children for support. An ancient law based on English poor laws throughout Canada, except for Alberta, regards this as the children's duty (Payback time, MacLeans, June 24, 2010). The media has picked on an example of bad parenting, committed by Ken Anderson's mother and father when he was just 15 years old to support the argument of the four adult children being sued, that they shouldn't have to pay support (A bad mother's right to support from her children, National Post, July 27, 2010).
Ken was left behind when his parents moved from Osoyoos to West Kootenay in BC - abandoned, as they describe it. Shirley Anderson took her second-youngest son, Darryl, with her, apparently against her husband Gary's wishes (What do we owe our parents, Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2010). Shirley Anderson raised five children, developed lupus along the way (Payback time for parents, MacLeans, June 24, 2010), and never worked. At age 71, she now has nothing. Gary, her ex, gave her alimony when they divorced, though his boss, Labbatts, needed encouragment to split his pension with her. He has since died.
Shirley went into debt with her credit card. Her attempts to get support have been going on for ten years now. Darryl has been in and out of jail and is not being sued. Ken is 46, married with children, not wealthy but hard-working, and resents the additional burden supporting his mother presents. Daughter Donna Anderson "breaks down in tears when she recalls her tumultuous childhood with the 'mother we never had' " (What do we owe our parents, Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2010). She went to university and is raising two children.
Son Brian bought her a fridge once, in an attempt to build a relationship. Donna and her mother attended counselling together. But nothing worked, the children say. Keith hasn't talked to her in years. "She doesn't even know we're alive," he is quoted as saying (What do we owe our parents, Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2010), though it appears she does. He adds, "She never worked and she's never worked at her family either."
It's suprising that she managed to raise such enterprising children - none got put into foster homes, only one in trouble with the law. They have educated themselves and worked hard, formed relationships and raised families. They also seem to have little tolerance for women of that era, who often did stay home with the children while the husband worked - cooking, cleaning, driving the children to school functions, community events, and to the doctor and dentist - shopping, sewing, mending, filling out forms for school, getting them their shots at the doctor's, putting on birthday parties, and so on. And she had five children to worry about! At the time Shirley was raising her family, the one-salary family was the quite typical, the man being the breadwinner, his earnings enough for the entire family. That changed, in the 70's probably, until we reached this time where it takes two incomes for a family to feel they have enough.
There is uncertainty about this kind of law, though Surrey, BC, lawyer David Greig says that a child must have means to pay support before they are made to (Payback time for parents, MacLeans, June 24, 2010). Unfortunately, it's part of the human condition for people to always think they need more. And whether the reason the children are so critical of their mother is, in part, due to their not wanting to have to pay her, we don't know. Whether it should be the children's responsibility or the system's, is the larger question.
Shirley's lawyer, Donald McLeod, says "My interest quite frankly is to see that someone is treated right, and that's all I care about . . . I don't know very many people that would not be happy to support an aged parent. The duty to support and assist an elderly parent transcends everything else" (What do we owe our parents, Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2010). And finally he says, "What kind of mother she was, or is, shouldn't matter. To engage in any analysis of who is at fault, I think that is a useless exercise."
"Do vengeance and vindictiveness have a place in the lives of otherwise decent people?" is the question asked in another piece on this subject (Forgiveness for an errant elder, Vancouver Sun, July 29, 2010). If Shirley was as bad as the children's stories suggest and this was not simply about money, the eye-for-an-eye retribution seems to be a little extreme. It is a symptom of our times - this hatred towards the older generation, especially women or anyone who is isolated and cannot defend themselves. Read the comments with the articles, for an idea of how our society thinks about them. It makes one wonder just how civilized we are.
Added Jan 1, 2013
A recent international news piece in the National Post, about Palestinian women being denied their rightful inheritance, raises a related matter. It may apply to Shirley Anderson’s situation, or may not. It simply is not mentioned – and why would it be – if the children received an inheritance from one of their mother’s relations through plans made for it to skip a generation. Such plans would no doubt be legal, though if some coercion had occurred, of an elderly relative, to perhaps ensure that certain descendants be left off the list of beneficiaries, then could this be considered an ethical digression, if not outright illegal? (see Tradition, social pressure keeping Palestinian women from their inheritances, Dec 27, 2012).
It is easy for people on the outside to judge, especially if they don’t know all the circumstances. False accusations or distortions of events made against the mother may hold little if any truth. It is far easier for those who hold power to have their word taken as truth than a mother fighting for survival. Some of what has been said I find shocking, particularly as one who found it necessary to leave the marriage I was in, the effects of it following me for a long time afterwards. No one is a perfect parent or spouse, but the odd one may cause harm that lasts. So much is talked about of women being able to choose to be stay-at-home mothers, but that works if she has a husband who will treat her like a human being, during the marriage and if it should end for some reason, then afterwards too. As we see here, from children who surely must have taken a huge amount of their mother’s time to raise, Shirley Anderson deserves more than what she got, from her family and from the legal system.
A bad mother's right to support from her children
By Adrian MacNair
National Post, Full comment
July 27, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/27/adrian-macnair-a-bad-mothers-right-to-support-from-her-children/#more-7817
Adult children won’t have to support mom, court rules
By Ian AustinThe Province
Jan 31, 2013http://www.theprovince.com/news/Adult+children+have+support+court+rules/7896113/story.html
Anderson v. Anderson, 2013 BCSC 129 (CanLII)
Court case result
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc129/2013bcsc129.html
Forgiveness for an errant elder
By Catherine A. Mori
Vancouver Sun
July 29, 2010
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=004cf063-8823-4b2e-9864-9b0dee0e576d
Payback time for parents
By Nancy Macdonald
MacLeans
June 24, 2010
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/24/payback-time-for-parents/
Runaway mom who sued adult children for support after abandoning them as teenagers NOT entitled to money: judge
National Post Wire Services
Feb 1, 2013
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/01/runaway-mom-who-sued-adult-children-for-support-after-abandoning-them-as-teenagers-not-entitled-to-money-judge
Shirley Anderson, Mom Who Sued Kids For Support, Loses Case
The Huffington Post B.C.
Jan 31, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/31/shirley-anderson-mom-sued-kids-child-support-bc_n_2592170.html
Tradition, social pressure keeping Palestinian women from their inheritances
By Diana Atallah
National Post - The Media Line
Dec 27, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/27/tradition-social-pressure-keeping-palestinian-women-from-their-inheritances/
Vancouver Sun
July 24, 2010
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=46e10b66-0c0e-4f80-bc01-e7bb262b67e5&p=6
Links updated Feb 3, 2013
Feb 3, 2013 - Edited and 4 additional references added
Shirley Anderson is suing her adult children for support. An ancient law based on English poor laws throughout Canada, except for Alberta, regards this as the children's duty (Payback time, MacLeans, June 24, 2010). The media has picked on an example of bad parenting, committed by Ken Anderson's mother and father when he was just 15 years old to support the argument of the four adult children being sued, that they shouldn't have to pay support (A bad mother's right to support from her children, National Post, July 27, 2010).
Ken was left behind when his parents moved from Osoyoos to West Kootenay in BC - abandoned, as they describe it. Shirley Anderson took her second-youngest son, Darryl, with her, apparently against her husband Gary's wishes (What do we owe our parents, Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2010). Shirley Anderson raised five children, developed lupus along the way (Payback time for parents, MacLeans, June 24, 2010), and never worked. At age 71, she now has nothing. Gary, her ex, gave her alimony when they divorced, though his boss, Labbatts, needed encouragment to split his pension with her. He has since died.
Shirley went into debt with her credit card. Her attempts to get support have been going on for ten years now. Darryl has been in and out of jail and is not being sued. Ken is 46, married with children, not wealthy but hard-working, and resents the additional burden supporting his mother presents. Daughter Donna Anderson "breaks down in tears when she recalls her tumultuous childhood with the 'mother we never had' " (What do we owe our parents, Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2010). She went to university and is raising two children.
Son Brian bought her a fridge once, in an attempt to build a relationship. Donna and her mother attended counselling together. But nothing worked, the children say. Keith hasn't talked to her in years. "She doesn't even know we're alive," he is quoted as saying (What do we owe our parents, Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2010), though it appears she does. He adds, "She never worked and she's never worked at her family either."
It's suprising that she managed to raise such enterprising children - none got put into foster homes, only one in trouble with the law. They have educated themselves and worked hard, formed relationships and raised families. They also seem to have little tolerance for women of that era, who often did stay home with the children while the husband worked - cooking, cleaning, driving the children to school functions, community events, and to the doctor and dentist - shopping, sewing, mending, filling out forms for school, getting them their shots at the doctor's, putting on birthday parties, and so on. And she had five children to worry about! At the time Shirley was raising her family, the one-salary family was the quite typical, the man being the breadwinner, his earnings enough for the entire family. That changed, in the 70's probably, until we reached this time where it takes two incomes for a family to feel they have enough.
There is uncertainty about this kind of law, though Surrey, BC, lawyer David Greig says that a child must have means to pay support before they are made to (Payback time for parents, MacLeans, June 24, 2010). Unfortunately, it's part of the human condition for people to always think they need more. And whether the reason the children are so critical of their mother is, in part, due to their not wanting to have to pay her, we don't know. Whether it should be the children's responsibility or the system's, is the larger question.
Shirley's lawyer, Donald McLeod, says "My interest quite frankly is to see that someone is treated right, and that's all I care about . . . I don't know very many people that would not be happy to support an aged parent. The duty to support and assist an elderly parent transcends everything else" (What do we owe our parents, Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2010). And finally he says, "What kind of mother she was, or is, shouldn't matter. To engage in any analysis of who is at fault, I think that is a useless exercise."
"Do vengeance and vindictiveness have a place in the lives of otherwise decent people?" is the question asked in another piece on this subject (Forgiveness for an errant elder, Vancouver Sun, July 29, 2010). If Shirley was as bad as the children's stories suggest and this was not simply about money, the eye-for-an-eye retribution seems to be a little extreme. It is a symptom of our times - this hatred towards the older generation, especially women or anyone who is isolated and cannot defend themselves. Read the comments with the articles, for an idea of how our society thinks about them. It makes one wonder just how civilized we are.
Added Jan 1, 2013
A recent international news piece in the National Post, about Palestinian women being denied their rightful inheritance, raises a related matter. It may apply to Shirley Anderson’s situation, or may not. It simply is not mentioned – and why would it be – if the children received an inheritance from one of their mother’s relations through plans made for it to skip a generation. Such plans would no doubt be legal, though if some coercion had occurred, of an elderly relative, to perhaps ensure that certain descendants be left off the list of beneficiaries, then could this be considered an ethical digression, if not outright illegal? (see Tradition, social pressure keeping Palestinian women from their inheritances, Dec 27, 2012).
It is easy for people on the outside to judge, especially if they don’t know all the circumstances. False accusations or distortions of events made against the mother may hold little if any truth. It is far easier for those who hold power to have their word taken as truth than a mother fighting for survival. Some of what has been said I find shocking, particularly as one who found it necessary to leave the marriage I was in, the effects of it following me for a long time afterwards. No one is a perfect parent or spouse, but the odd one may cause harm that lasts. So much is talked about of women being able to choose to be stay-at-home mothers, but that works if she has a husband who will treat her like a human being, during the marriage and if it should end for some reason, then afterwards too. As we see here, from children who surely must have taken a huge amount of their mother’s time to raise, Shirley Anderson deserves more than what she got, from her family and from the legal system.
A bad mother's right to support from her children
By Adrian MacNair
National Post, Full comment
July 27, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/27/adrian-macnair-a-bad-mothers-right-to-support-from-her-children/#more-7817
Adult children won’t have to support mom, court rules
By Ian AustinThe Province
Jan 31, 2013http://www.theprovince.com/news/Adult+children+have+support+court+rules/7896113/story.html
Anderson v. Anderson, 2013 BCSC 129 (CanLII)
Court case result
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc129/2013bcsc129.html
Forgiveness for an errant elder
By Catherine A. Mori
Vancouver Sun
July 29, 2010
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=004cf063-8823-4b2e-9864-9b0dee0e576d
Payback time for parents
By Nancy Macdonald
MacLeans
June 24, 2010
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/24/payback-time-for-parents/
Runaway mom who sued adult children for support after abandoning them as teenagers NOT entitled to money: judge
National Post Wire Services
Feb 1, 2013
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/01/runaway-mom-who-sued-adult-children-for-support-after-abandoning-them-as-teenagers-not-entitled-to-money-judge
Shirley Anderson, Mom Who Sued Kids For Support, Loses Case
The Huffington Post B.C.
Jan 31, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/31/shirley-anderson-mom-sued-kids-child-support-bc_n_2592170.html
Tradition, social pressure keeping Palestinian women from their inheritances
By Diana Atallah
National Post - The Media Line
Dec 27, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/27/tradition-social-pressure-keeping-palestinian-women-from-their-inheritances/
What do we owe our parents?
By Denise RyanVancouver Sun
July 24, 2010
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=46e10b66-0c0e-4f80-bc01-e7bb262b67e5&p=6
Links updated Feb 3, 2013
23 May 2010
Robin Hood: class warfare
Conrad Black writes: "If the richest Americans are to be enlisted in the fight against poverty, it should be in the form of private-sector anti-poverty projects that wealthy taxpayers could design and administer themselves. This would involve the best financial minds in poverty reduction and would give the wealthiest people an incentive to eliminate poverty, as the rate of tax would decline as poverty declined and would vanish when poverty, as reasonably defined, vanished."
Why does Conrad assume that the wealthiest are the smartest. How is it that myth persists?
Usually the wealthiest are those who conform the most, jumping through the hoops and doing whatever it is that our society wants, and values. Take Lady Gaga, for instance. She knows, as did Madonna, when she started her career.
On another level are the practically mindless folk who actually do attempt to 'shortchange' their customers. Getting their jobs because of some relationship they have formed certainly doesn't lead them to be grateful, it would seem. Stealing from the poor is the other side to all this - including money, careers, educational opportunities.
In 'Robin Hood or the Pope' Tom Cosgrove mentions Father Larry Snyder and the website about Poverty in America, Think and Act Anew. One would think 'Reclaiming the dignity of work' is what our society needs, but I imagine that only works when the worker has earned the right to the job. 'Collateral damage' seems to be the effect, when people are denied the opportunity to earn a living. They don’t really matter.
Conrad himself believes that "we must banish to the proverbial dustbin of history the heirloom of Fabian attitude that any benefit to society’s short-changed must be wrung from the sweat of the diligent and transformed into the penalization of success." Perhaps that statement would make sense if all the wealthy did actually earn what they were paid - according to the time and energy and knowledge they put into their work, instead of the value of work being based on some extraordinary needs of our society, with those who need it most being cast out as virtually unemployable.
Together with nepotism, favouritism, and a sexualized society, these excessively-paid celebrities, entertainers and some might add, politicians, do nothing to help turn our society into a fair and humane place for those struggling for something better.
Collateral Damage
By Fr Larry Snyder
Think and Act Anew website
May 12, 2010
http://www.thinkandactanew.org/think-and-act-anew/2010/05/index.html
The Lady Gaga guide to capitalism
By Conrad Black
National Post
May 22, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/22/the-lady-gaga-guide-to-capitalism/#more-1330
The real Robin never robbed the rich
By John Ridpath
National Post
May 19, 2010
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/19/the-real-robin-never-robbed-the-rich.aspx link no longer works
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_May_RealRobinNeverRobbedRich.doc
Contains original comment made online by Sue McPherson
Robin Hood or the Pope: Who Really Cares About the Poor?
By Tom Cosgrove
Huffington Post
May 18, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-cosgrove/robin-hood-or-the-pope-wh_b_580417.html
Stealing From the Rich: Four Different Approaches
By Dave Kehr
May 21, 2010
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/movies/homevideo/23kehr.html
Links updated April 17, 2012
Why does Conrad assume that the wealthiest are the smartest. How is it that myth persists?
Usually the wealthiest are those who conform the most, jumping through the hoops and doing whatever it is that our society wants, and values. Take Lady Gaga, for instance. She knows, as did Madonna, when she started her career.
On another level are the practically mindless folk who actually do attempt to 'shortchange' their customers. Getting their jobs because of some relationship they have formed certainly doesn't lead them to be grateful, it would seem. Stealing from the poor is the other side to all this - including money, careers, educational opportunities.
In 'Robin Hood or the Pope' Tom Cosgrove mentions Father Larry Snyder and the website about Poverty in America, Think and Act Anew. One would think 'Reclaiming the dignity of work' is what our society needs, but I imagine that only works when the worker has earned the right to the job. 'Collateral damage' seems to be the effect, when people are denied the opportunity to earn a living. They don’t really matter.
Conrad himself believes that "we must banish to the proverbial dustbin of history the heirloom of Fabian attitude that any benefit to society’s short-changed must be wrung from the sweat of the diligent and transformed into the penalization of success." Perhaps that statement would make sense if all the wealthy did actually earn what they were paid - according to the time and energy and knowledge they put into their work, instead of the value of work being based on some extraordinary needs of our society, with those who need it most being cast out as virtually unemployable.
Together with nepotism, favouritism, and a sexualized society, these excessively-paid celebrities, entertainers and some might add, politicians, do nothing to help turn our society into a fair and humane place for those struggling for something better.
Collateral Damage
By Fr Larry Snyder
Think and Act Anew website
May 12, 2010
http://www.thinkandactanew.org/think-and-act-anew/2010/05/index.html
The Lady Gaga guide to capitalism
By Conrad Black
National Post
May 22, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/22/the-lady-gaga-guide-to-capitalism/#more-1330
The real Robin never robbed the rich
By John Ridpath
National Post
May 19, 2010
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/19/the-real-robin-never-robbed-the-rich.aspx link no longer works
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_May_RealRobinNeverRobbedRich.doc
Contains original comment made online by Sue McPherson
Robin Hood or the Pope: Who Really Cares About the Poor?
By Tom Cosgrove
Huffington Post
May 18, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-cosgrove/robin-hood-or-the-pope-wh_b_580417.html
Stealing From the Rich: Four Different Approaches
By Dave Kehr
May 21, 2010
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/movies/homevideo/23kehr.html
Links updated April 17, 2012
21 May 2010
Michael Ignatieff: leadership potential in Canadian politics
Revised May 29, 2010
Updated June, 2012
It's astounding that Michael Ignatieff is being treated the way he is, when you look at all he has to offer.
In our society, continuity is seen as normal, and better than discontinuity or separation. The lengthy, continuous career is looked upon as a model for a good work history, while travelling and working in diverse occupations, and in more than one country, can be viewed as a sign of flightiness. In reality, this kind of life can make a person 'more of a Canadian,' (a term attributed to Ignatieff in recent news articles, and not kindly eg ‘Michael Ignatieff thinks,’ 2010), more understanding of different ways of living and working, more able to stand back and look at the entire picture, but it can be detrimental when one comes to trying for a new career in a country that doesn't understand this. Ignatieff was probably right when he said the Conservatives were "provincial" in their thinking - the Conservatives and many Canadians (Michael Ignatieff accuses Conservatives, 2010).
After all Ignatieff has done in his life - teaching, journalism, writing books, serving as professor at universities, he is sometimes criticized for not doing anything substantial, for not showing Canadians what he is all about. But isn't what it's all about is having the "trust and confidence" of the people, and "vision for Canada," as this article claims? Could the problem, in part, be the people working for the Liberals. See this, from the article, apparently a comment by "one senior insider" : “Ignatieff hasn’t unveiled any substance yet and until he does, he can’t move anywhere" (The pressure is on Ignatieff, 2010).
So now we're back to having to have something of substance to convince the people of Canada that Ignatieff would make a good leader, not just knowing that he is able to think, write, do the work, act with determination, and do all the things a leader must be able to do. He actually has to show proof, and not proof gained while working in other countries for non party-political jobs.
To say it's up to Ignatieff to stop the freefall, if that's what it is, is unfair (The pressure is on Ignatieff, 2010). According to this article, "Mr. Ignatieff has already fired one group of top advisors yet his poll numbers are still dropping." He must wonder what is going on too.
He may be the best thing to happen for the Liberals, and our country, but if people can't change their perspective on his travels out of Canada and return to it, and all the qualities he has proven (though not to us), he may not ever get the chance to be PM.
Ignatieff is not only being blamed for the Liberal freefall, he's the one being forced to take responsibility for stopping it. I think that's not so. It's got to come from the people themselves. If, when one is absent, one takes the time to look at what is going on in Canada, one might see things about it that are truly disquieting. and so, I'm not sure this would make one a "better Canadian" (as Rex Murphy claims Ignatieff said), when being a good Canadian often seems to mean keeping quiet about the norms of our society and the injustices committed here.
In his May 29th column, Rex Murphy becomes rhetorical, saying, "We learn our country by living in it, by absorbing the flow of its events, by acquiring an emotional as well as an intellectual grasp of its rhythms and moods. We inhabit this country, and it returns the favour: It inhabits us" (Michael Ignatieff’s out-of-country, 2010).
In reality, the ideas expressed in this sentence are nonsense. Being that close to a country or a person can make us take its qualities for granted, so much so that people are often advised to take a break from it - a vacation or a separation, to reflect and enable rational thoughts to emerge, where once feelings guided all decisions. No one can know the entire country, or all its people. We all live in our own little worlds, sometimes of our own making, sometimes not. We latch onto pieces of it that we recognize as being 'ours', as Canadian. But most importantly, it is the leaving that enables a person to get a better picture of what is going on - and the returning that holds the promise of something better for the country.
Ignatieff's absence is no obstacle to his ability to do well at the job of PM. In fact, I know that staying away will have given him so much more. Besides having been able to look upon Canada from a distance, he has now undergone critique by his fellow Canadians, who seem unable to grasp the significance of his time abroad. I have said before that leaving and then returning does leave one out-of-touch with prices, and changes in laws, but a read-up of these is usually enough. Does one ever forget how to ride a bike?
Rex asks, "There is an essence to this country. What we have in common, the core, is that which enables the embrace of diversity in the first place. Mr. Ignatieff may understand some of this, but does he feel it? Does he perceive the strength and depth of the common endeavour which has been and is this country since its founding? "
Perhaps not, Rex. I don't feel it. Perhaps it takes something from one's countrymen, after having spent time away, before one can feel it again. Perhaps one does have to take some time going through the motions before people start to see how unjust their behaviour and criticism is.
Added June 2012
In ‘Beyond Workaday Worlds’ (2005) I draw on the work of Mary Catherine Bateson, who wrote:
“continuity is the exception in twentieth-century America, and that adjusting to discontinuity is not an idiosyncratic problem of my own but the emerging problem of our era...In may ways, constancy is an illusion” (Composing a life, 1989).
As I state in that essay under the subtitle Unity, Continuity, and Contradictions, “her aim was to make sense of interrupted and discontinuous lives of the “composite life,” illustrating the importance of responding to change and learning to adapt (p 7). To illustrate what I had discovered about work and about such concepts as continuity, as they apply to real life, I incorporated aspects from life stories of five individuals I had written following interviews and research.
More often than not, in the past, it was men who had the careers that established continuity for them, thus a form of respectability and earned trust, I imagine. In the fairly recent past, it was more often women whose careers lacked that kind of continuity, and not just over childbearing. In some ways, it seems as though this is what’s bothering some people about Michael Ignatieff, that he didn’t have a long continuous career, or keep his focus on politically-oriented positions, instead branching out to academia and tv broadcasting, for instance, thus must have the ‘stability’ factor lacking in his character, I believe they must think.
If so many really are against Ignatieff, then it may be that they hold old-fashioned ideas about work, as well as about what it means to be a Canadian. For his own thoughts on this, see the 2011 article ‘My name is Michael Ignatieff, and I am Canadian.’ As for Rex Murphy’s question, “Does he perceive the strength and depth of the common endeavour which has been and is this country since its founding?,” this is not the way our country is going. The common endeavor has been lost, as people with diverse backgrounds and goals vie for their own place in society and to have their own culture recognized. What chance is there of having that unity back now that Ignatieff has left? See Adrienne Redd’s informed perspective that acts as counterpoint to all those who have expressed doubts about Ignatieff’s ability (Ignatieff, the Best Prime Minister, 2011).
There is no 'essence' to this country, and demanding that a PM encompass traditional values of work and continuity, rather than travelling and working abroad at more than one occupation places a stifling limitation on what a prime minister can or should project to the people.
Michael Ignatieff is currently teaching at the University of Toronto.
Beyond Workaday Worlds: Aging, Identity, and the Life Cycle
By Sue McPherson
SAMcPherson.homestead.com
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/BeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc
Composing a Life
By Mary Catherine Bateson
New York: Plume.
1989
Ignatieff, the Best Prime Minister Canada Will Never Have
By Adrienne Redd
TheTyee.ca
May 7, 2011
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/05/07/Ignatieff/
Michael Ignatieff accuses Conservatives of “divide in order to rule” politics
By Linda Diebel
Toronto Star
May 18, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810818--michael-ignatieff-accuses-conservatives-of-divide-in-order-to-rule-politics
Michael Ignatieff thinks he's more Canadian than you are
By Matt Gurney
May 18, 2010
National Post
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/18/matt-gurney-untitled-ignatieff.aspx
Michael Ignatieff’s out-of-country experience
By Rex Murphy
May 29, 2010
National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/29/michael-ignatieffs-out-of-country-experience
My name is Michael Ignatieff, and I am Canadian
By Michael Ignatieff
Globe and Mail
June 29, 2011
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/my-name-is-michael-ignatieff-and-i-am-canadian/article2079267/?service=mobile
The pressure is on Ignatieff to stop Liberal freefall
By John Ivison
National Post, Full comment
May 20, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/20/the-pressure-is-on-ignatieff-to-stop-liberal-freefall/
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/20/john-ivison-the-pressure-is-on-ignatieff-to-stop-liberal-freefall.aspx
http://www.nanosresearch.com/news/in_the_news/National%20Post%20May%2020%202010.pdf
Links updated June, 2012
Updated June, 2012
It's astounding that Michael Ignatieff is being treated the way he is, when you look at all he has to offer.
In our society, continuity is seen as normal, and better than discontinuity or separation. The lengthy, continuous career is looked upon as a model for a good work history, while travelling and working in diverse occupations, and in more than one country, can be viewed as a sign of flightiness. In reality, this kind of life can make a person 'more of a Canadian,' (a term attributed to Ignatieff in recent news articles, and not kindly eg ‘Michael Ignatieff thinks,’ 2010), more understanding of different ways of living and working, more able to stand back and look at the entire picture, but it can be detrimental when one comes to trying for a new career in a country that doesn't understand this. Ignatieff was probably right when he said the Conservatives were "provincial" in their thinking - the Conservatives and many Canadians (Michael Ignatieff accuses Conservatives, 2010).
After all Ignatieff has done in his life - teaching, journalism, writing books, serving as professor at universities, he is sometimes criticized for not doing anything substantial, for not showing Canadians what he is all about. But isn't what it's all about is having the "trust and confidence" of the people, and "vision for Canada," as this article claims? Could the problem, in part, be the people working for the Liberals. See this, from the article, apparently a comment by "one senior insider" : “Ignatieff hasn’t unveiled any substance yet and until he does, he can’t move anywhere" (The pressure is on Ignatieff, 2010).
So now we're back to having to have something of substance to convince the people of Canada that Ignatieff would make a good leader, not just knowing that he is able to think, write, do the work, act with determination, and do all the things a leader must be able to do. He actually has to show proof, and not proof gained while working in other countries for non party-political jobs.
To say it's up to Ignatieff to stop the freefall, if that's what it is, is unfair (The pressure is on Ignatieff, 2010). According to this article, "Mr. Ignatieff has already fired one group of top advisors yet his poll numbers are still dropping." He must wonder what is going on too.
He may be the best thing to happen for the Liberals, and our country, but if people can't change their perspective on his travels out of Canada and return to it, and all the qualities he has proven (though not to us), he may not ever get the chance to be PM.
Ignatieff is not only being blamed for the Liberal freefall, he's the one being forced to take responsibility for stopping it. I think that's not so. It's got to come from the people themselves. If, when one is absent, one takes the time to look at what is going on in Canada, one might see things about it that are truly disquieting. and so, I'm not sure this would make one a "better Canadian" (as Rex Murphy claims Ignatieff said), when being a good Canadian often seems to mean keeping quiet about the norms of our society and the injustices committed here.
In his May 29th column, Rex Murphy becomes rhetorical, saying, "We learn our country by living in it, by absorbing the flow of its events, by acquiring an emotional as well as an intellectual grasp of its rhythms and moods. We inhabit this country, and it returns the favour: It inhabits us" (Michael Ignatieff’s out-of-country, 2010).
In reality, the ideas expressed in this sentence are nonsense. Being that close to a country or a person can make us take its qualities for granted, so much so that people are often advised to take a break from it - a vacation or a separation, to reflect and enable rational thoughts to emerge, where once feelings guided all decisions. No one can know the entire country, or all its people. We all live in our own little worlds, sometimes of our own making, sometimes not. We latch onto pieces of it that we recognize as being 'ours', as Canadian. But most importantly, it is the leaving that enables a person to get a better picture of what is going on - and the returning that holds the promise of something better for the country.
Ignatieff's absence is no obstacle to his ability to do well at the job of PM. In fact, I know that staying away will have given him so much more. Besides having been able to look upon Canada from a distance, he has now undergone critique by his fellow Canadians, who seem unable to grasp the significance of his time abroad. I have said before that leaving and then returning does leave one out-of-touch with prices, and changes in laws, but a read-up of these is usually enough. Does one ever forget how to ride a bike?
Rex asks, "There is an essence to this country. What we have in common, the core, is that which enables the embrace of diversity in the first place. Mr. Ignatieff may understand some of this, but does he feel it? Does he perceive the strength and depth of the common endeavour which has been and is this country since its founding? "
Perhaps not, Rex. I don't feel it. Perhaps it takes something from one's countrymen, after having spent time away, before one can feel it again. Perhaps one does have to take some time going through the motions before people start to see how unjust their behaviour and criticism is.
Added June 2012
In ‘Beyond Workaday Worlds’ (2005) I draw on the work of Mary Catherine Bateson, who wrote:
“continuity is the exception in twentieth-century America, and that adjusting to discontinuity is not an idiosyncratic problem of my own but the emerging problem of our era...In may ways, constancy is an illusion” (Composing a life, 1989).
As I state in that essay under the subtitle Unity, Continuity, and Contradictions, “her aim was to make sense of interrupted and discontinuous lives of the “composite life,” illustrating the importance of responding to change and learning to adapt (p 7). To illustrate what I had discovered about work and about such concepts as continuity, as they apply to real life, I incorporated aspects from life stories of five individuals I had written following interviews and research.
More often than not, in the past, it was men who had the careers that established continuity for them, thus a form of respectability and earned trust, I imagine. In the fairly recent past, it was more often women whose careers lacked that kind of continuity, and not just over childbearing. In some ways, it seems as though this is what’s bothering some people about Michael Ignatieff, that he didn’t have a long continuous career, or keep his focus on politically-oriented positions, instead branching out to academia and tv broadcasting, for instance, thus must have the ‘stability’ factor lacking in his character, I believe they must think.
If so many really are against Ignatieff, then it may be that they hold old-fashioned ideas about work, as well as about what it means to be a Canadian. For his own thoughts on this, see the 2011 article ‘My name is Michael Ignatieff, and I am Canadian.’ As for Rex Murphy’s question, “Does he perceive the strength and depth of the common endeavour which has been and is this country since its founding?,” this is not the way our country is going. The common endeavor has been lost, as people with diverse backgrounds and goals vie for their own place in society and to have their own culture recognized. What chance is there of having that unity back now that Ignatieff has left? See Adrienne Redd’s informed perspective that acts as counterpoint to all those who have expressed doubts about Ignatieff’s ability (Ignatieff, the Best Prime Minister, 2011).
There is no 'essence' to this country, and demanding that a PM encompass traditional values of work and continuity, rather than travelling and working abroad at more than one occupation places a stifling limitation on what a prime minister can or should project to the people.
Michael Ignatieff is currently teaching at the University of Toronto.
Beyond Workaday Worlds: Aging, Identity, and the Life Cycle
By Sue McPherson
SAMcPherson.homestead.com
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/BeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc
Composing a Life
By Mary Catherine Bateson
New York: Plume.
1989
Ignatieff, the Best Prime Minister Canada Will Never Have
By Adrienne Redd
TheTyee.ca
May 7, 2011
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/05/07/Ignatieff/
Michael Ignatieff accuses Conservatives of “divide in order to rule” politics
By Linda Diebel
Toronto Star
May 18, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810818--michael-ignatieff-accuses-conservatives-of-divide-in-order-to-rule-politics
Michael Ignatieff thinks he's more Canadian than you are
By Matt Gurney
May 18, 2010
National Post
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/18/matt-gurney-untitled-ignatieff.aspx
Michael Ignatieff’s out-of-country experience
By Rex Murphy
May 29, 2010
National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/29/michael-ignatieffs-out-of-country-experience
My name is Michael Ignatieff, and I am Canadian
By Michael Ignatieff
Globe and Mail
June 29, 2011
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/my-name-is-michael-ignatieff-and-i-am-canadian/article2079267/?service=mobile
The pressure is on Ignatieff to stop Liberal freefall
By John Ivison
National Post, Full comment
May 20, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/20/the-pressure-is-on-ignatieff-to-stop-liberal-freefall/
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/20/john-ivison-the-pressure-is-on-ignatieff-to-stop-liberal-freefall.aspx
http://www.nanosresearch.com/news/in_the_news/National%20Post%20May%2020%202010.pdf
Links updated June, 2012
12 July 2009
Resentment towards the privileged: inability to take responsibility
In the New York times article, 'Dangerous Resentment,' Judith Warner takes up the battle of fellow elitist Bridget Kevane, a mother who perceived herself as being unjustly victimized by her local shopping mall, the police, the prosecutor, and women not so privileged as herself. In her own explanation of the events, in Guilty as Charged (Brain, Child 2009), Bridget Kevane closes with these words:
"For feeling constantly torn between so many daily demands, trying to make it all work, but knowing that I sometimes fall short, I am guilty. But of knowingly putting my children in harm’s way by letting them go to the mall alone? Not guilty."
Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, for she didn't simply allow her kids and friends to go to the mall. She drove them there - in her words, to "a safe place". In this magazine for 'thinking mothers', she emphasizes the closeness of her community, how the children "wander to each other’s homes," going "from one house to the other, to the park, or walking around the nearby university." She also mentions her own childhood, telling how she developed her independence in a family of eight siblings altogether. She says, "In many ways, I raised my youngest sister, walking her around the neighborhood, taking her to the local neighborhood store, and more."
Her mother, she says, "believed in the power of allowing her children to gain independence by depending on themselves." But Bridget driving her children to the mall for the afternoon had nothing to do with the manner in which Bridget gained independence as a child, getting familiar with her neighbourhood, making decisions about where to go and when to leave for home.
The mall Bridget drove her children to was not within her local community, and it was not mentioned how far away it was if the children had decided to walk home. It might have been better, if she had wanted to lie down for an hour or two, to let the children go for a walk to the park, or to the corner store for an ice cream, than to drive them outside their local area to a mall so she could take a nap. That way, at least, if the children had had a disagreement, or one felt tired or unwell, they wouldn't have had to disturb her at home to come back to the mall to pick them up.
It's also not rational to assume that because an 11-year-old is capable of babysitting within the confines of their home that they can safely assume responsibility in a public area such as a mall, with a Macys and other stores, a movie theatre, and dining areas. The children were placed in a situation of not being able to make certain decisions, but were entirely dependent on the shopping mall being a 'safe place' for kids.
I know that educated women can sometimes be treated unfairly. But I think that women's upbringing can be what counts against some of them, if they fail to comprehend the lives of other women and the subject matter they have been given the privilege of researching and writing about. Unfortunately, too many women who do so don't know what they're talking about.
Judith Warner, the author of Dangerous Resentment, the NY Times article about mother and professor Bridget Kevane, argues that the incident in no way could be called 'child endangerment,' the charge brought against the mother. I wonder if Judith has a better suggestion, perhaps 'abandonment,' or should the wayward mother simply have been let off if there was no appropriate name for this error in judgement. What is clear, however, is that Judith Warner is out of her depth.
Some of the 259 comments on this article, Dangerous Resentment, have dealt with these issues, and are well worth the read, including how a poor mother in shabby clothes would have been dealt with by the police, and some of the mindless assumptions made by Bridget Kevane, privileged due to her elitist position as a professor to believe that it is her right to let children in her care spend the day alone at the mall. The resentment some of us feel, about women like Kevane, and about Judith Warner, is that they use their position to take advantage of others while avoiding responsibility. In other words, they don't have a clue what this world is all about.
Guilty as Charged
By Bridget Kevane
Brain, Child magazine
July 1, 2009
http://www.brainchildmag.com/essays/summer2009_kevane.asp
Dangerous Resentment
By Judith Warner
NY Times
July 9, 2009
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/dont-hate-her-because-shes-educated/?em
links updated May, 2012
"For feeling constantly torn between so many daily demands, trying to make it all work, but knowing that I sometimes fall short, I am guilty. But of knowingly putting my children in harm’s way by letting them go to the mall alone? Not guilty."
Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, for she didn't simply allow her kids and friends to go to the mall. She drove them there - in her words, to "a safe place". In this magazine for 'thinking mothers', she emphasizes the closeness of her community, how the children "wander to each other’s homes," going "from one house to the other, to the park, or walking around the nearby university." She also mentions her own childhood, telling how she developed her independence in a family of eight siblings altogether. She says, "In many ways, I raised my youngest sister, walking her around the neighborhood, taking her to the local neighborhood store, and more."
Her mother, she says, "believed in the power of allowing her children to gain independence by depending on themselves." But Bridget driving her children to the mall for the afternoon had nothing to do with the manner in which Bridget gained independence as a child, getting familiar with her neighbourhood, making decisions about where to go and when to leave for home.
The mall Bridget drove her children to was not within her local community, and it was not mentioned how far away it was if the children had decided to walk home. It might have been better, if she had wanted to lie down for an hour or two, to let the children go for a walk to the park, or to the corner store for an ice cream, than to drive them outside their local area to a mall so she could take a nap. That way, at least, if the children had had a disagreement, or one felt tired or unwell, they wouldn't have had to disturb her at home to come back to the mall to pick them up.
It's also not rational to assume that because an 11-year-old is capable of babysitting within the confines of their home that they can safely assume responsibility in a public area such as a mall, with a Macys and other stores, a movie theatre, and dining areas. The children were placed in a situation of not being able to make certain decisions, but were entirely dependent on the shopping mall being a 'safe place' for kids.
I know that educated women can sometimes be treated unfairly. But I think that women's upbringing can be what counts against some of them, if they fail to comprehend the lives of other women and the subject matter they have been given the privilege of researching and writing about. Unfortunately, too many women who do so don't know what they're talking about.
Judith Warner, the author of Dangerous Resentment, the NY Times article about mother and professor Bridget Kevane, argues that the incident in no way could be called 'child endangerment,' the charge brought against the mother. I wonder if Judith has a better suggestion, perhaps 'abandonment,' or should the wayward mother simply have been let off if there was no appropriate name for this error in judgement. What is clear, however, is that Judith Warner is out of her depth.
Some of the 259 comments on this article, Dangerous Resentment, have dealt with these issues, and are well worth the read, including how a poor mother in shabby clothes would have been dealt with by the police, and some of the mindless assumptions made by Bridget Kevane, privileged due to her elitist position as a professor to believe that it is her right to let children in her care spend the day alone at the mall. The resentment some of us feel, about women like Kevane, and about Judith Warner, is that they use their position to take advantage of others while avoiding responsibility. In other words, they don't have a clue what this world is all about.
Guilty as Charged
By Bridget Kevane
Brain, Child magazine
July 1, 2009
http://www.brainchildmag.com/essays/summer2009_kevane.asp
Dangerous Resentment
By Judith Warner
NY Times
July 9, 2009
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/dont-hate-her-because-shes-educated/?em
links updated May, 2012
27 May 2009
Comments in general, and Letter to the Editor, Globe and Mail
On May 23 I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor" (letters@globeandmail.ca) to the Globe and Mail. I will expand on the issue here, however, by adding links to compilations of some of the comments made by readers about the two articles.
In two articles this month, Sarah Boesveld addressed the subject of work, in ‘No shame in self-promotion’ (May 4) and ‘The quiet shame of job success’ (May 11). Ms Boesveld must have a knack for saying the things that get people thinking, as both articles received many worthwhile comments. I am perturbed, however, that in the end, what we are left with is only the article. The original links to the articles do not work, although I did manage to access the articles (minus comments) through checking the columnist’s name and accompanying list of articles. It concerns me that the articles got considerable attention from the public, but none of this is on record at the Globe and Mail online, not for future readers or for researchers. In this sense, I would describe the Comments service offered by G&M as a tension reliever, but not as anything significant for the purpose of knowing what ordinary people actually think. Some of us put in considerable time and effort into making comments that are insightful and informative, based on our life experience and our education. To have only the ‘authoritative’ view available two weeks later is both demeaning and disappointing.
Today, Wed May 27, I decided to submit the letter directly to the Editor, Angus Frame, at aframe@globeandmail.ca . The letter has been submitted and, as you can see, rather than wait any longer for a response from somebody, it is also on my blog.
Sarah Boesveld and readers. ‘No shame in self-promotion’ and comments. Globe and Mail, May 4, 2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_May_NoShameinSelfPromotion.doc
Sarah Boesveld and readers. ‘The quiet shame of job success’ and comments. Globe and Mail, May 11, 2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_May_QuietShameofJobSuccess.doc
In two articles this month, Sarah Boesveld addressed the subject of work, in ‘No shame in self-promotion’ (May 4) and ‘The quiet shame of job success’ (May 11). Ms Boesveld must have a knack for saying the things that get people thinking, as both articles received many worthwhile comments. I am perturbed, however, that in the end, what we are left with is only the article. The original links to the articles do not work, although I did manage to access the articles (minus comments) through checking the columnist’s name and accompanying list of articles. It concerns me that the articles got considerable attention from the public, but none of this is on record at the Globe and Mail online, not for future readers or for researchers. In this sense, I would describe the Comments service offered by G&M as a tension reliever, but not as anything significant for the purpose of knowing what ordinary people actually think. Some of us put in considerable time and effort into making comments that are insightful and informative, based on our life experience and our education. To have only the ‘authoritative’ view available two weeks later is both demeaning and disappointing.
Today, Wed May 27, I decided to submit the letter directly to the Editor, Angus Frame, at aframe@globeandmail.ca . The letter has been submitted and, as you can see, rather than wait any longer for a response from somebody, it is also on my blog.
Sarah Boesveld and readers. ‘No shame in self-promotion’ and comments. Globe and Mail, May 4, 2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_May_NoShameinSelfPromotion.doc
Sarah Boesveld and readers. ‘The quiet shame of job success’ and comments. Globe and Mail, May 11, 2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_May_QuietShameofJobSuccess.doc
26 April 2009
Sexuality and ‘The Purity Myth’ by Jessica Valenti
An short excerpt from the book The Purity Myth appeared yesterday on Parentcentral.com on the Toronto Star pages online. The subheading was ‘The author of a new book argues against purity cults’, and that is what Jessica Valenti does, in this promotion of her book. How does such tripe get included in the parents’ section of the Toronto Star? Do parents realize that this author is promoting promiscuity in this piece, and possibly within the entire book if this is any indication of what it’s about?
Approaching this subject in a black-and-white manner, only seeing two perspectives, she leaves readers with the suggestion that purity and virginity are old-fashioned and destructive towards young women’s sense of themselves, sexually. Attempting to turn readers (parents?) against the idea of purity and virginity is not a rational approach to the serious topic of young women’s sexuality. It’s part of it, but it isn’t the main problem. Making virginity the problem suggests to readers that the only alternative is so-called sexual ‘freedom,’ a stance I find damaging for girls/women and to society, maybe more so than the idea that women should remain pure. My response to the piece submitted online follows:
The double standard of gender differences in sexuality
Jessica Valenti has set up two polar opposites in this excerpt, creating a false sense of what the problems are. It's popular now to 'be sexual', as she says, although I wonder how much of the 'being sexual' is really that, for many young women out of touch with their own bodies. Valenti claims that "The sexual double standard is alive and well, and it's irrevocably damaging young women," but the problem actually is that feminists, in their attempt to do away with the double standard, have put women in the position of having to pretend there is no double 'standard', if standard is the right word.
Men's sexuality IS different than women's. Men have a different physical body, different biology, different hormones, while the standard men (and women) are led to believe in is that women are the same as men, sexually, and are, or should be, willing and able to have sex, without a relationship, for the sake of fun and sexual release only. Women are rewarded for perpetuating that tradition.
How 'virginity' is a dangerous idea
Jessica Valenti
Parentcentral.ca (Toronto Star)
Apr 25, 2009
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/623495
Approaching this subject in a black-and-white manner, only seeing two perspectives, she leaves readers with the suggestion that purity and virginity are old-fashioned and destructive towards young women’s sense of themselves, sexually. Attempting to turn readers (parents?) against the idea of purity and virginity is not a rational approach to the serious topic of young women’s sexuality. It’s part of it, but it isn’t the main problem. Making virginity the problem suggests to readers that the only alternative is so-called sexual ‘freedom,’ a stance I find damaging for girls/women and to society, maybe more so than the idea that women should remain pure. My response to the piece submitted online follows:
The double standard of gender differences in sexuality
Jessica Valenti has set up two polar opposites in this excerpt, creating a false sense of what the problems are. It's popular now to 'be sexual', as she says, although I wonder how much of the 'being sexual' is really that, for many young women out of touch with their own bodies. Valenti claims that "The sexual double standard is alive and well, and it's irrevocably damaging young women," but the problem actually is that feminists, in their attempt to do away with the double standard, have put women in the position of having to pretend there is no double 'standard', if standard is the right word.
Men's sexuality IS different than women's. Men have a different physical body, different biology, different hormones, while the standard men (and women) are led to believe in is that women are the same as men, sexually, and are, or should be, willing and able to have sex, without a relationship, for the sake of fun and sexual release only. Women are rewarded for perpetuating that tradition.
How 'virginity' is a dangerous idea
Jessica Valenti
Parentcentral.ca (Toronto Star)
Apr 25, 2009
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/623495
24 April 2009
Discrimination against mentally disabled and developmentally challenged: Orillia
Recently, in March, 2009, while searching the internet for information on the Ontraio Hospital at Orillia, Ontario, I came across a website offering the postcard 'Ontario Hospital or the Orillia Asylum for Idiots'. The site was apparently set up by the Orillia Public Library. I submitted a comment (on March 16, 2009) to the site, http://images.ourontario.ca/orillia/details.asp?ID=20399&p=c, giving my thoughts on this, as follows:
I'm really surprised that a library would resort to using this kind of description - even if it's true that the Ontario Hospital at Orillia once was called the Asylum for Idiots. To have it set up so that people can actually send this card by email is beyond belief. If you had the opportunity, library staff, would you make such postcards available to email if they showed and mentioned 'n----rs'? [Posted by Sue McPherson, 16 Mar 2009 at 16:17].
When I checked the other day, a response had been posted from the editors of the site, but which neglected to address my concerns:
Thank you for your comments Sue. I appreciate your concern regarding derogatory terms in these listings but the fact of the matter is...the name of the hospital was at that time called the Orillia Asylum for Idiots. Bear in mind that this was a the term used back in the 1860.s & 1870s. Of course we don't use such terms today. However, when inputting historical information it is important that we keep the names, titles and terminology given at that period in time. This makes it easier for those doing research and will be looking for something using the official title. Here is some history on the building you might find it interesting. This is a direct passage from the Frost Scrapbook. Couchiching Beach Park was originally called ‘Asylum Pointâ€. The building was originally erected for a hotel by Henry Fraser of Price’s Corners. It was purchased by the Government in 1859 and enlarged and occupied by a “Convalescent Lunatic Asylum†to use the objectionable description of those days. The hospital was under the charge of Dr. John Ardagh. The name was later changed to “Orillia Lunatic Asylum for Chronic Patientsâ€. This was later converted to “Asylum for Idiots†under Dr. Beaton. The Beaton family were very well known in Orillia. The building was then torn down after which the property was purchased by the Town for Couchiching Beach Park. The Price was $10,000.00. The present great institution for defective children was then erected on its present on Lake Simcoe. On an aside. In later years the new building became known as the Huronia Regional Centre or H.R.C. That is what it is called today.
I decided to submit another comment, which I did today, April 24, 2009, to the same site, as follow:
I didn't realize you were 'inputting historical information on the internet' in this manner. I thought it was a joke - a bad one, making fun of people, once again, whose mental condition has so often been something of ridicule in society. The fact of the matter is, that while it may be true the institution was called that (an asylum for idots) it is not so true that it was them who were the idiots. It might just be that the people who put them there, who treated them, and punished them, were the idiots.
I could understand it, to some extent, if you felt threatened by the people you are telling this kind of distortion about, if they were rich, powerful women and men. But they weren't. The patients were often lied about, or punished for not conforming to society, perhaps placed in the mental hospital by their families in order to get rid of them, or sometimes they may have been victims of misunderstandings, of their own emotions, or the emotions of others. I agree, to a large extent, that understanding the circumstances of the historical topic requires an analysis sensitive to its history, but more than that I believe it requires an analysis sensitive to the topic itself, and not just to the historical period. Unfortunately, that was lacking in the original set-up of the postcard online, as you (who by the way still remains anonymous) must realize. I do realize that the Orillia institution was more recently known as the Huronia Regional Centre, from doing an internet search on the subject, and many years ago I worked summers at the Ontario Hospital in Woodstock (later called the Oxford Regional Centre), and knew of the hospital in Orillia. [submitted April 24, 2009, by Sue McPherson].
Added Apr 25, 2012
Since then, several other comments have been made, some concerned about having the truth about the hospital told, some more about the criticism itself.
As it happens, through the comments now on this site, telling the story of the building, one of the main problems has been resolved. If a reputable organization decides to promote its city’s history or offer information for anyone with connections, then using a defamatory title on such a postcard would need to be accompanied by an explanation of how it came to be used and what the building later came to be known as – in other words – the history of the postcard.
Simply posting an image of the postcard, for internet viewers to access and pay a fee to email interested others, without explaining the history, would simply perpetuate the ignorance of viewers as well as, perhaps, receivers of the email postcard which had the title ‘Orillia Asylum of Idiots.’
Strangely, I didn’t receive any acknowledgment of the part I played in raising awareness of this issue, but I do hope it has sunk in. Without an explanation to go with the postcard, displaying it in such a manner suggests other motives than educating readers.
Postcard ‘Orillia Asylum for Idiots’
Orillia Library online images
http://images.ourontario.ca/orillia/details.asp?ID=20399&p=c
Link updated Apr 2012
I'm really surprised that a library would resort to using this kind of description - even if it's true that the Ontario Hospital at Orillia once was called the Asylum for Idiots. To have it set up so that people can actually send this card by email is beyond belief. If you had the opportunity, library staff, would you make such postcards available to email if they showed and mentioned 'n----rs'? [Posted by Sue McPherson, 16 Mar 2009 at 16:17].
When I checked the other day, a response had been posted from the editors of the site, but which neglected to address my concerns:
Thank you for your comments Sue. I appreciate your concern regarding derogatory terms in these listings but the fact of the matter is...the name of the hospital was at that time called the Orillia Asylum for Idiots. Bear in mind that this was a the term used back in the 1860.s & 1870s. Of course we don't use such terms today. However, when inputting historical information it is important that we keep the names, titles and terminology given at that period in time. This makes it easier for those doing research and will be looking for something using the official title. Here is some history on the building you might find it interesting. This is a direct passage from the Frost Scrapbook. Couchiching Beach Park was originally called ‘Asylum Pointâ€. The building was originally erected for a hotel by Henry Fraser of Price’s Corners. It was purchased by the Government in 1859 and enlarged and occupied by a “Convalescent Lunatic Asylum†to use the objectionable description of those days. The hospital was under the charge of Dr. John Ardagh. The name was later changed to “Orillia Lunatic Asylum for Chronic Patientsâ€. This was later converted to “Asylum for Idiots†under Dr. Beaton. The Beaton family were very well known in Orillia. The building was then torn down after which the property was purchased by the Town for Couchiching Beach Park. The Price was $10,000.00. The present great institution for defective children was then erected on its present on Lake Simcoe. On an aside. In later years the new building became known as the Huronia Regional Centre or H.R.C. That is what it is called today.
I decided to submit another comment, which I did today, April 24, 2009, to the same site, as follow:
I didn't realize you were 'inputting historical information on the internet' in this manner. I thought it was a joke - a bad one, making fun of people, once again, whose mental condition has so often been something of ridicule in society. The fact of the matter is, that while it may be true the institution was called that (an asylum for idots) it is not so true that it was them who were the idiots. It might just be that the people who put them there, who treated them, and punished them, were the idiots.
I could understand it, to some extent, if you felt threatened by the people you are telling this kind of distortion about, if they were rich, powerful women and men. But they weren't. The patients were often lied about, or punished for not conforming to society, perhaps placed in the mental hospital by their families in order to get rid of them, or sometimes they may have been victims of misunderstandings, of their own emotions, or the emotions of others. I agree, to a large extent, that understanding the circumstances of the historical topic requires an analysis sensitive to its history, but more than that I believe it requires an analysis sensitive to the topic itself, and not just to the historical period. Unfortunately, that was lacking in the original set-up of the postcard online, as you (who by the way still remains anonymous) must realize. I do realize that the Orillia institution was more recently known as the Huronia Regional Centre, from doing an internet search on the subject, and many years ago I worked summers at the Ontario Hospital in Woodstock (later called the Oxford Regional Centre), and knew of the hospital in Orillia. [submitted April 24, 2009, by Sue McPherson].
Added Apr 25, 2012
Since then, several other comments have been made, some concerned about having the truth about the hospital told, some more about the criticism itself.
As it happens, through the comments now on this site, telling the story of the building, one of the main problems has been resolved. If a reputable organization decides to promote its city’s history or offer information for anyone with connections, then using a defamatory title on such a postcard would need to be accompanied by an explanation of how it came to be used and what the building later came to be known as – in other words – the history of the postcard.
Simply posting an image of the postcard, for internet viewers to access and pay a fee to email interested others, without explaining the history, would simply perpetuate the ignorance of viewers as well as, perhaps, receivers of the email postcard which had the title ‘Orillia Asylum of Idiots.’
Strangely, I didn’t receive any acknowledgment of the part I played in raising awareness of this issue, but I do hope it has sunk in. Without an explanation to go with the postcard, displaying it in such a manner suggests other motives than educating readers.
Postcard ‘Orillia Asylum for Idiots’
Orillia Library online images
http://images.ourontario.ca/orillia/details.asp?ID=20399&p=c
Link updated Apr 2012
10 February 2009
Attitudes towards poverty
This article, the Poverty-Health Link, needs more of a response than simply saying the solution is to "reduce poverty." I have found that living without enough money is extremely stressful, besides not always having the money to pay for healthy-living foods. Stress itself might lead one to seek comfort foods, at least on more occasions than those better off. Giving up - feeling despondent about life - could lead to a poor person to have difficulty finding the effort to exercise, not to mention not having the money to take a taxi to the local swimming pool (a situation I found myself in Colchester, UK. Buses only got as close as several blocks away.) Then, when this despondency is seen by others, it may be mistaken for laziness. Trying to deal with the attitudes of ignorant others is half the battle. It's difficult to get to some medical appointments, when the cost of taxis and parking is sometimes beyond one's means.
Would poor people be best advised to spend their last $10 on healthy food, or keeping that appointment to take care of that health problem? For people not on welfare or not officially disabled, struggling to get by, assistance in transportation costs would be a great idea. Local governments, and any interested group:(1) Try and make health and recreation facilities available to everyone, not just those who have their own transportation, money, and health to access them. (2) Educate public employees, especially those in health services, what it feels like to not have one's needs listened to, especially if one's health is poor. (3) Provide low-cost foods in supermarkets, some labelled 'basic' if you like, and fruits and vegetables with flaws, for those who have no hangups about such things. (4) Recognize that there probably are a lot of people struggling with health and money issues who also have to deal with the general public attitude that being poor means one is stupid and lazy.
The poverty-health link
Editorial
Toronto Star
Feb 10, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/584859
Beyond Workaday Worlds
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.comfilesEssaysandWritingBeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 2012
Would poor people be best advised to spend their last $10 on healthy food, or keeping that appointment to take care of that health problem? For people not on welfare or not officially disabled, struggling to get by, assistance in transportation costs would be a great idea. Local governments, and any interested group:(1) Try and make health and recreation facilities available to everyone, not just those who have their own transportation, money, and health to access them. (2) Educate public employees, especially those in health services, what it feels like to not have one's needs listened to, especially if one's health is poor. (3) Provide low-cost foods in supermarkets, some labelled 'basic' if you like, and fruits and vegetables with flaws, for those who have no hangups about such things. (4) Recognize that there probably are a lot of people struggling with health and money issues who also have to deal with the general public attitude that being poor means one is stupid and lazy.
The poverty-health link
Editorial
Toronto Star
Feb 10, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/584859
Beyond Workaday Worlds
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.comfilesEssaysandWritingBeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 2012
13 November 2008
Supply and Demand: Is GM really indispensable?
"There's no magical difference between the banks and the auto industry; they're both indispensable" (Premier McGuinty, in Banks get help, but will GM? 13 Nov 2008).
What an odd comment! Let GM concentrate on the maintenance of older cars during these harsh economic times. Maybe they could try and ensure that parts are available, and consumer advice on DIY vehicle improvement. That would be far more valuable a contribution, in my view, than the endless production of new vehicles for consumers who cannot, at this time, afford them, at least some of whom probably feel the necessity of keepng up with the Joneses.
Let's stop this kind of one upmanship, and give GM workers the space to find other ways of contributing to society from their wealth of knowledge, not the least of which will be the probably new discovery to many of them that such loss of identity, income, and security can happen to anyone.
Read the comments following the Toronto Star article if you want to see just how many ordinary citizens oppose the bailing out of GM. And feel free to read my essay, Beyond Workaday Worlds.
Banks get help, but will GM?
By Richard Brennan in Ottawa, Ann Perry in Toronto
Toronto Star
Nov 13, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/article/536036
Beyond Workaday Worlds: Aging, Identity, and the Life Cycle
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/BeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
What an odd comment! Let GM concentrate on the maintenance of older cars during these harsh economic times. Maybe they could try and ensure that parts are available, and consumer advice on DIY vehicle improvement. That would be far more valuable a contribution, in my view, than the endless production of new vehicles for consumers who cannot, at this time, afford them, at least some of whom probably feel the necessity of keepng up with the Joneses.
Let's stop this kind of one upmanship, and give GM workers the space to find other ways of contributing to society from their wealth of knowledge, not the least of which will be the probably new discovery to many of them that such loss of identity, income, and security can happen to anyone.
Read the comments following the Toronto Star article if you want to see just how many ordinary citizens oppose the bailing out of GM. And feel free to read my essay, Beyond Workaday Worlds.
Banks get help, but will GM?
By Richard Brennan in Ottawa, Ann Perry in Toronto
Toronto Star
Nov 13, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/article/536036
Beyond Workaday Worlds: Aging, Identity, and the Life Cycle
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/BeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
12 November 2008
Women's rights: breastfeeding on demand?
If this mother is allowing her almost-2-yr-old daughter to be fed on demand, apparently for no other reason than she was "cranky", what kind of message does this give to the toddler, and what will this do to her future development as a human being living in a social world with others, as she grows older.
The article doesn't say whether the two-year-old had inadvertently gone too long without sustenance of any kind, and whether the realization that she had had led the mother to taking such immediate action, or whether the offering of the breast was her usual method of calming a cranky child, as she indicated in this article. When people/children demand their rights, it is often at the risk of the rights of others being taken away from them. Thinking in the short term and the longterm, I question the value to society of this kind of on-demand practice.
Mother fights for right to nurse in pool
By Susan Pigg
Toronto Star online
Nov 12, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/article/535310
Link updated Apr 24, 2012
The article doesn't say whether the two-year-old had inadvertently gone too long without sustenance of any kind, and whether the realization that she had had led the mother to taking such immediate action, or whether the offering of the breast was her usual method of calming a cranky child, as she indicated in this article. When people/children demand their rights, it is often at the risk of the rights of others being taken away from them. Thinking in the short term and the longterm, I question the value to society of this kind of on-demand practice.
Mother fights for right to nurse in pool
By Susan Pigg
Toronto Star online
Nov 12, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/article/535310
Link updated Apr 24, 2012
28 September 2008
Margaret Atwood and Harper's culture cuts
In response to the question directed towards Margaret Atwood "You talk in your book about the link between debt and sin. Why do we feel shame about financial hardship?" (Globe and Mail, Sept 26. 2008), Atwood says she thinks "the stigma comes from wanting people to think better of you than your actions might actually warrant." It seems to me this is a rather elitist attitude.
Our society is founded on money, and those without are shamed, whether or not they have done anything to deserve it. If one is a global corporation, of course, or The Arts, then the apparent reasons for 'financial hardship' may not always be seen as being mainly due to their failings. I have nothing against Art and Culture, nor against keeping major corporations in business for the sake of maintaining some stability of economy, but I question Atwood's attitude and (lack of) knowledge of what it's like to be poor and where stigma comes from (other people and society itself, as it happens).
Arts and culture are not self-supporting, as we know. But there is no shame on their part, nor placed upon them, for not being able to earn their own way. Poor people often work like hell, for other people or in their own homes, with little recompense. Yet because they are not home-owners, or do not have the trappings of wealth, they are seen as less worthy. Shame on you, Margaret Atwood, for your attitude!
Atwood talks about the need to put more into technology, yet in another article (CBC, Sept 24, 2008), the controversial subject of funding of the Arts is taken up. But if all those talented workers in Arts and Culture were to experience financial hardship, perhaps some of the really bad attitudes towards the poor would change.
It seem to many people that there are plenty of jobs to go around if one has talent and the ability to do the work (even in Arts and culture, I wouldn't doubt) but the truth is there aren't enough decent jobs for people who deserve them and who could do them well. The threat of Culture cuts demonstrates this. I hope people can expand this line of reasoning to the general population, many of whom also are competent and able, but who may never get to do the work they wanted to do, and in fact may never again find employment.
Actors condemn Harper's culture cuts (see also 1015 comments by readers)
CBC News
September 24, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2008/09/24/artist-protests.html
Let's hope arts bashing just a pose (see also 38 comments)
By Martin Knelman
Toronto Star
Sep 29, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/507392 link no longer available
http://www.thestar.com/federalelection/article/507392--let-s-hope-arts-bashing-just-a-pose
Margaret Atwood's old-fashioned approach to debt
Sinclair Stewart, TORONTO
Globe and Mail
Sept 26, 2008, Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article712062.ece
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
Our society is founded on money, and those without are shamed, whether or not they have done anything to deserve it. If one is a global corporation, of course, or The Arts, then the apparent reasons for 'financial hardship' may not always be seen as being mainly due to their failings. I have nothing against Art and Culture, nor against keeping major corporations in business for the sake of maintaining some stability of economy, but I question Atwood's attitude and (lack of) knowledge of what it's like to be poor and where stigma comes from (other people and society itself, as it happens).
Arts and culture are not self-supporting, as we know. But there is no shame on their part, nor placed upon them, for not being able to earn their own way. Poor people often work like hell, for other people or in their own homes, with little recompense. Yet because they are not home-owners, or do not have the trappings of wealth, they are seen as less worthy. Shame on you, Margaret Atwood, for your attitude!
Atwood talks about the need to put more into technology, yet in another article (CBC, Sept 24, 2008), the controversial subject of funding of the Arts is taken up. But if all those talented workers in Arts and Culture were to experience financial hardship, perhaps some of the really bad attitudes towards the poor would change.
It seem to many people that there are plenty of jobs to go around if one has talent and the ability to do the work (even in Arts and culture, I wouldn't doubt) but the truth is there aren't enough decent jobs for people who deserve them and who could do them well. The threat of Culture cuts demonstrates this. I hope people can expand this line of reasoning to the general population, many of whom also are competent and able, but who may never get to do the work they wanted to do, and in fact may never again find employment.
Actors condemn Harper's culture cuts (see also 1015 comments by readers)
CBC News
September 24, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2008/09/24/artist-protests.html
Let's hope arts bashing just a pose (see also 38 comments)
By Martin Knelman
Toronto Star
Sep 29, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/507392 link no longer available
http://www.thestar.com/federalelection/article/507392--let-s-hope-arts-bashing-just-a-pose
Margaret Atwood's old-fashioned approach to debt
Sinclair Stewart, TORONTO
Globe and Mail
Sept 26, 2008, Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article712062.ece
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
21 September 2008
Life at the top: Toronto and Hong Kong
The mention in this article of the "$25 million penthouse at One Bloor – which was sold to an unidentified Hong Kong buyer" (Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo, Sept 21, 2008) reminds me of my grandfather, John L McPherson, who lived in Hong Kong for 30 years and for some time lived in the most privileged area - on 'The Peak', at that time reserved for Europeans, mainly, I believe, not the Chinese. I realize there must have been some hostility about these circumstances, but I have often thought that at least my grandfather was trying to do something beneficial for Hong Kong, spending 30 years there building up the YMCA. I would ask, at this point, in what ways are the buyers of these expensive properties in Toronto planning to make a difference in the lives of the people of Toronto and, more widely, of Ontario.
J. L. McPherson, Hong Kong YMCA: General Secretary 1905-1935
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/JLMcPhersonHKYMCA.html
Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo
By Tony Wong, Business reporter
TO Star
Sept 21, 2008
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/503119
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
J. L. McPherson, Hong Kong YMCA: General Secretary 1905-1935
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/JLMcPhersonHKYMCA.html
Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo
By Tony Wong, Business reporter
TO Star
Sept 21, 2008
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/503119
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)