Loading...
The Citizen, 2011-07-21, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2011. PAGE 5. “…the age of chivalry is gone. That of the sophisters, economists and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.” Edmund Burke wrote those words back in 1790 and the chivalry he mourned was one we wouldn’t recognize today. He was referring to the qualities expected of an ideal knight: exceptional courage, dedication to honour and justice, a readiness to always help the weak and disadvantaged. Over the next couple of centuries the concept of chivalry devolved to become a loose code of manners for The Boys – gentlemanliness, if you will – and most particularly, courteous behaviour towards women. I’m not as old as Edmund Burke but close enough – and that’s the way I was raised. I was taught to treat the cloven members of the human race with more deference than the crested ones. I learned early on that it was okay to roughhouse with Pat and Mike, but not with Patricia and Michelle. I could swap dirty jokes with the guys but not the girls. It became second nature to hold open doors, surrender my seat on the bus or subway and to offer to carry the parcels of anyone who looked like they could use a hand. Sounds quaintly innocent now. Back in the newly-liberated 1970s such behaviour almost got me lynched. I remember my first re-education lesson. It was circa 1973, I was approaching the front door of the CBC studios in Thunder Bay, and a woman I knew slightly was coming behind me. Instinctively, (suavely, I thought) I grasped the door handle, stepped back out of the way and gestured for the woman to enter. She unloaded a tirade on my head that could have blistered paint. I don’t recall all the words she said. “Condescending” was in there for sure, and I think I heard something about “paternalistic superiority” and “centuries of male oppression”. The gist of her sermon was: I can open my own damned doors, thank you very much. I was displaying, I was told, the classic symptoms of a ‘benevolent sexist’. In other words, I was treating someone with excessive courtesy just to show that I was really in charge. It’s an idea that hasn’t gone away. A recent issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly published a report showing that everyday acts that imply women should be cherished and protected are actually sinister forms of patriarchal control. Offering to carry a woman’s shopping bags to her car? You’re implying she’s weak. Volunteering to walk a colleague to her car after dark? You’re suggesting she’s incapable of looking after her own safety. Complimenting a woman on her cooking? You’re reinforcing the old chestnut that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. Stopping to help a female motorist with a flat tire? You’re insinuating that she is congenitally clueless about mechanical problems. Huh. Let me just say that if anybody ever sees me standing at the side of the road beside a baffed-out car, feel free to pull over and give me a hand. I don’t know a tire iron from a windshield wiper, so I’ll be grateful for any help I can get – and I don’t care if you’re wearing mechanic’s overalls or a miniskirt. Cooking? I can burn water. Anybody of any gender who offers me a home-cooked meal can expect to be slobbered on effusively. You want to carry out my groceries? Sure. I’ve done that – it’s tiring. Fill your boots. If it’s after dark and a dodgy part of town I’ll be happy to walk you to your car. It’s not that I’m a Kung Fu expert or even an NHL defenceman, but I’m big and ugly enough to qualify as masher-repellent. It’s been so long since anybody hit on me I can’t even remember which one wears the dog collar. As for holding open doors, I still do that – for everybody, male or female. So sue me. Mind you I’m careful not to say anything while I’m holding the door. I am mindful of the time Clare Booth Luce collided with her rival, Dorothy Parker, in a doorway. Ms Luce stepped to one side and hissed “Age before beauty”. Sweeping through the doorway, Parker purred over her shoulder, “Pearls before swine”. Arthur Black Other Views Manners maketh (wo)man Earlier this month one of the National Football League’s most ruthless defensive players took some of his most vicious shots yet, but he wasn’t lowering his shoulder, he was opening his mouth. James Harrison, a linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers, was quoted in Men’s Journal as saying all kinds of nasty things about his teammates and most notably, the commissioner of the league, Roger Goodell. Specifically, Harrison said “if [Goodell] was on fire and I had to piss to put him out, I wouldn’t do it. I hate him and will never respect him.” He also called him several names like the devil, a crook, a puppet and capped it off with a homophobic slur. Harrison didn’t seem to sweat his comments though, he just employed the age-old cure-all that everyone can use, and get away with these days. He blamed the writer. He didn’t say he was misquoted, which would imply inaccurate reporting by the author. He said his words were “taken out of context” and twisted by the writer. Unfortunately, in the age of the internet, bloggers and the like are often not held accountable for their actions. So if any one of the millions of blogs on the internet reports something incorrectly, there are no consequences as there are in serious journalism, whether it be print, online, radio or broadcast. And with this tidal wave of inaccuracy that has come with the internet, every credible writer seems to have been washed away along with it. It’s another form of desensitization, like kids with violent video games. Readers are becoming more and more trained to question the accuracy of the source due to the bad apples of the internet ruining the entire basket. For example, when news is broken on the internet, the first thing we all do is check other websites to see how widespread the story is. If just one website has a story, often we dismiss it as being false. So while Harrison’s comments will soon be forgotten, not enough people are questioning how a sentiment like not urinating on someone if they were on fire can be taken out of context. Instead he is forgiven, because more and more people think it was probably just a writer beefing up his story to sell more magazines. Years ago during the North Huron Accommodation Review I accurately quoted someone from the Avon Maitland District School Board as saying “Inadvertently, I believe, the members of the community have painted a picture of the students of F. E. Madill Secondary School as drug fiends, smokers, alcoholics and child molesters and that is the furthest thing from the truth.” At a meeting I attended in Belgrave, the comment was mentioned by several members of the community who felt the comment was out of line. At a later meeting which I did not attend, I was later informed that the board representative stated that his words were “taken out of context” and twisted. Unfortunately for me people seemed to accept his claim. Too often people believe this umbrella excuse and not question the logistics behind how such a direct quote, like Harrison’s or the school board quote could be twisted and not mean exactly what it sounds like it means. They are both pretty strong, definitive quotes without a lot of room for misinterpretation. Certainly there will always be spin doctors, playing up good parts of a story and playing down the bad parts and it’s up to the public to believe who they think is right. Taken out of context I don’t think I’d make a very good municipal politician given my experience in covering local councils. Recently the question was called at one of the council’s I cover as to where the line needs to be drawn between what a councillor can comment on and what falls under staff direction. As far as I, a taxpayer, am concerned, councillors are there to make sure that the taxes I pay are being spent wisely, time isn’t being wasted and the people in certain positions are the ones who should be in those positions. To that end, comments on those aforementioned topics should, in my mind, definitely be allowed. If someone isn’t performing as well as a councillor believes they should for the pay they receive, then it should either be explained to the councillor (in public, to directly deal with the issue) or it should be considered as part of the council’s mandate to direct the policy that governs the area. The way I see it is this – if I’m appointed to a board and my job is to see that the board works as efficiently and inexpensively as possible and I find someone is consistently underwhelming me in the few interactions I have with them, I’m going to question their value to the team. Now, I’m not pointing any fingers here or agreeing or disagreeing with any comments made, I’m simply stating that we elect these people to make those decisions. We appoint people to represent us and our interests. Call me crazy, but I don’t want to pay any more taxes than I already do, so I’m glad when I hear a councillor say (in any municipality) something similar to the following phrases: • “Is this a necessary expenditure?” • “Why is this so much higher than it was before?” • “Why are we paying someone to do something we could do ourselves?” If many of those questions are asked and directed at the same individual or group, then I think the fair question is, why are these questions constantly being asked? I saw one councillor, again, mentioning no names, through asking these questions, find several thousands of dollars worth of savings by pointing out some confusing numbers. I think that councils and their members shouldn’t be so constrained in how they deal with the people who carry out their policies. For those of you who haven’t attended many local council meetings, this is how things typically play out. A member of the staff (who is responsible for carrying out council’s will) will make a presentation to council usually ending in a recommendation, council will then decide whether it should be carried out or not. Councillors will ask questions regarding the cost of the project and whether it was budgeted for or not. Those attending, for example, North Huron council lately, may have noticed that in recent weeks there have been several recommendations within the Fire Department of North Huron report requesting things be completed that are part of the budget for the Emergency Services Training Centre and simply need to be approved. These items, which, as I already said, are already budgeted and therefore nearly considered paid for, are easy suggestions to deal with. Another example, from another council in The Citizen’s coverage area, Ashfield- Colborne-Wawanosh Township, is the reconstruction of London Street in Port Albert. According to their engineer, the project will be on budget, maybe even under budget. It’s easy for councillors to say yes to things they have already said yes to once before when the budget was on the table. Confusion, questions and complications come when suggestions are put forward that are beyond the scope of the budget or cost substantially more than what was estimated in the budget. It’s when issues like this arise that councillors ask questions like why? If they don’t get a satisfactory answer, I think they should have the right to question why they didn’t receive one. Furthermore, I think that comparing a council to something like a board of directors is a faulty analogy. A board of directors’ job is to make a company or a group profitable or sustainable, a council has a lot more responsibility than just that and a lot more recognition. Boards can be nearly invisible – councils are elected. Councils have a mandate that they themselves set when they begin to campaign. I can choose whether or not I want to support a company by becoming a shareholder in it and giving them my money but I can’t with a municipality. I think the rules that govern council members should be different than those that govern board members because I don’t have the choice as to whether my money is going into the coffers of the municipality I live in. I want to know that is not just rubber stamping all the suggestions that pass through their chamber. I want to know that my taxes are being spent wisely, and limiting the interactions between a council and the people paid by my tax dollars seems to be at odds with those values to me. Shawn Loughlin Shawn’s Sense Denny Scott Denny’s Den Council needs the right to question