frostbiker

I question the assumption behind this map, which is the idea that men and women must have work at the same rate and anything else is an aberration that needs to be addressed. The issue is more subtle than that.

I'll speak from the perspective of a father who quit his job to raise his small children, knowing that it is complete career suicide (I worked in tech).

In my view a problem occurs when somebody wants to work and is unable to, as well as when somebody wants to quit working and is also unable to do so. And while there are some general trends where for example women often quit (paid) work for a few years to raise their families, that is only a problem when they would rather not, but this simplistic map (and narrative) doesn't shed any light on that.

Likewise, how many fathers out there would love to raise their small kids but don't because they know they will be destroying their careers to a degree that their female peers will not? This map does capture this issue, but the simplistic narrative that women sacrifice their careers to raise their children does not, when in practice the damage to their career is much less than a man doing the same thing.

Want a useful map? Poll people to find out why they are working instead of quitting, rather than having preconceived simplistic assumptions about what "is right".

If they can walk, they can bike. If they can't walk, how safe is it for them to drive a car? Calling a taxi or an ambulance is not out of the question.

My daughter used to do stuff like that. She then turned three and started behaving much better.

The Icelandic guy is incredibly wealthy when you consider the population of Iceland. If redistributed equally, each Icelander would get $6700.

“Kinew has some kind of minor scandal? Well then I hate him because he has poor character, not because of the colour of his skin. You see, I am not a racist.”

I have happily worked with and voted for people of various skin colors over the years. My wife and children are non-white. I am queer.

While I don't know how serious his homophobic and misogynistic behaviors have been, prima facie it is not something I would have overlooked if he was a white dude, and for that same reason it is not something I would overlook if I was a voter in Manitoba either. Treating him differently because of his heritage would have been racist in my eyes.

So I have mixed feelings about him becoming premier. On the one hand I'm happy that racist prejudices didn't prevent him from winning, but at the same time I do have lingering doubts about whether the opposite sort of racism is enabling yet another homophobic misogynist to reach public office. We already have enough of those.

And that is why I am quoting MLK: because I can celebrate that a POC is holding office, while at the same time I don't want people to be voted for or against based on their skin color, sexual orientation, etc. Just based on their character.

If that means that I am secretly racist, then perhaps it means somebody voting for him is secretly homophobic or misogynistic. I think it is a rather nuanced subject.

Edit: Honest question: would have a problem with somebody for voicing doubts about a white politician who "had trouble with the law as a young man and had included racist lyrics in his raps"? Why or why not?

Blaming the victim is very easy to do when you don't fear that the next victim could be you.

Its just that I fail to see how mentioning that the new Premiere’s First Nations heritage is problematic

Did I say it was problematic, or is that something you assumed?

I am both surprised and disappointed that quoting MLK can be misconstrued as racism, but I guess that's the Internet these days.

The most recent vote I cast was to Olivia Chow, FWIW. Make of that what you want.

The wording is problematic, isn’t it.

It's nearly word-for-word taken from MLK's iconic anti-racism speech. Do you have a problem against his words or the spirit of what he was saying? Please elaborate.

I don't get how a quote against racism can be controversial in this day and age 🤷

MLK's whole "I have a dream" speech seems very apropos, doesn't it?

In Toronto shared paths are limited to 20Kph, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

If close calls or accidents were happening, we should study the causes. Is it due to bikes going faster than it is safe? Due to pedestrians walking in the left/middle of the path? Due to poor visibility around tight corners? Each of those problems have different solutions.

Not enough freedom to teach the way they want to, entitled parents who think their precious child can do no wrong, too many children per classroom, insufficient budget.

Good job! I find it hilarious because I am disabled and can ride a bike just fine. Not all disabilities stop you from riding a bike.

But as you point out, public transit looks to me like the most accessible means of transportation, not cars.