As some of you know, I play bridge competitively at bridge clubs; so, I know a lot of retired people. Strange because I don't think I am ever going to retire. The community out there might stop coming to see my shows and leave me with no choice, I suppose, but other than that I don't think I'm ever going to stop. I really love what I do even though I make very little money doing it.
Some people I know are looking forward to an early retirement because they have plans to involve themselves in some other kind of career, even in a volunteer or semi-professional way. One friend calls it 'getting paid to breath'. He can't wait.
But, in talking to most of my friends who are about seven or eight years older than me, all they want to do is retire so they can stop working. They hate their jobs. Been doing them now for about thirty some odd years and hate them. They are computer programmers, bank middle managers, insurance agents. Nice folks. Hard working folks. But absolutely, abysmally bored in their professional lives. And they're not really going to change their skills much in their late fifties unless they take the initiative to start their own businesses. This is a risky venture and most of these people, like most people, took the careful, safer road. It's not really in their nature to strike out on their own. And come on, they have mortgages, and kids going to uni, growing medical challenges, and credit card debt....
So, I am worried for how these folks might feel finding out that they now have to wait until age 67 to get their pensions. So, I wondered, is retirement good for you? Is an earlier retirement better?
Anecdotally, the folks I know who are retired (and, like I say, I know quite a few) seem to be having a great time. They play bridge, golf, tennis, take long walks or jog. They really get out there and seem healthy and vibrant. Most of them tell me they don't know how they used to have the time to work. But, interestingly, my anecdotal evidence is deeply skewed to folks who are engaged in the world. I don't have much anectodal on folks who don't thrive in retirement. So it's no help.
So what do the studies tell us? An Australian study, many years ago, suggested that people only live for about thirteen years following retirement, regardless of what age they retire. A recent, possibly more comprehensive study suggests that men (not women) suffer from retirement but it's not the retirement, necessarily, that's the problem. It's the involuntary cessation of work that kills. Women tend to continued the caregiving role as they age, a role that men of that generation have eschewed. So, regardless of what age of retirement or whether they were forced or not, women have a reason to get out of bed and men don't. If the man in question doesn't plan for retirement, then he may find himself with little meaningful work to do -- a gaping hole that gardening and jogging just doesn't fill. On the basis of this study, some governments are considering raising their retirement rates.
However, getting back to my friends: Most of them WANT to retire. They WANT OUT. And, in fact, one suggested that this generation should GET OUT. Get out of the way, he meant. That they should retire as early as they can to open up the way for the next generation to come forward. However, the economic view is that we want to keep labour force participation as high as possible to keep the economy going. As always, though, it won't be the middle managers who suffer (most of them will have work pensions built up over decades), it will be folks in heavy labour jobs -- jobs that have little, if any, pension; jobs that punish the body. For those folks, another two years may be too much.
So, who knows whether this new measure is good for Canada? But one thing I do wonder is this: If involuntary cessation of work is bad, is involuntary forced labour good?
Jacqui Burke is a freelance director, writer, and theatrical teacher living in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. She is currently directing Wrong for Each Other for Encore Productions opening in April, Kidsplay 2012: The Mayan Prediction opening in June, and The Last Five Years for TOKL Productions opening in July. She is, also, serializing The Pretender, her first novel, online at http://thepretender-amarcienoelnovel.blogspot.ca/.
Like what you read? Encourage me by clicking on one of these ads in the blog....
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
At Least We Would Know
It's been an odd six or eight months, watching those crazy kids to the south start to propose, debate, and pass laws that limit women's lives by limiting their reproductive choices. It's been surreal watching the GOP candidates skittering on the edge of insanity over this topic.
Margaret Sanger stated that a woman's primary responsibility was to herself, not the state - this after watching her mother endure 18 pregnancies in 22 years. Thing is, she said this almost a hundred years ago and US attitudes toward women are backward, still. Sometimes I am just so thankful that I live in Canada except, well....
Here we go: Mitt Romney says he supports birth control but doesn't seem to know how it works because he believes that human life begins at conception. Newt Gingrich also says human life begins at conception which would outlaw many forms of birth control. And not only does Rick Santorum want to limit access to birth control, he also thinks it's a "license to bring things into the sexual realm that are counter to the way things are supposed to be." I wonder what me means by that.
Despite the figures that state that women overwhelmingly approve of birth control (97% of women have used it at one time or other), these candidates are against it. Women are, also, healthier for having birth control and so are babies. Stripped of the exhaustion, health risks, and responsibility of non-stop pregnancy, women can become more effective and productive members of society. All this is so well documented, I am not even going to bother citing it. And it follows that if women and children are healthier and happier, men are healthier and happier. Birth control makes life better for all of us.
So. So what? What? What could these GOP hopefuls possibly be thinking? That the dominant force in politics in the looney-tune right? It's absolutely nuts, disappointingly backward, and downright evil.
And the best thing that could ever have happened to the moderate left.
These GOP hopefuls are counting on women doing as they are told. They are counting on women voting down party lines and accepting their attitudes. They are counting on women being cowed by male centred intimidation and male dominated religious views. They are counting on wives doing what they're told.
But I wonder how many women will slip into that voter's booth, slide the curtain across while winking at their pseudo-dominant husbands, and go ahead and vote for birth control, for human rights, and for a better world for all. How many of them will vote for Obama?
I wonder. Only time will tell. But, in the interim, the more these GOP hopefuls jump around declaring the evil in birth control, the better. Better than them hiding their real views and then trying to inflict them on the world like our prime minister did. At least, women in the States know what they are voting for.
Margaret Sanger stated that a woman's primary responsibility was to herself, not the state - this after watching her mother endure 18 pregnancies in 22 years. Thing is, she said this almost a hundred years ago and US attitudes toward women are backward, still. Sometimes I am just so thankful that I live in Canada except, well....
Here we go: Mitt Romney says he supports birth control but doesn't seem to know how it works because he believes that human life begins at conception. Newt Gingrich also says human life begins at conception which would outlaw many forms of birth control. And not only does Rick Santorum want to limit access to birth control, he also thinks it's a "license to bring things into the sexual realm that are counter to the way things are supposed to be." I wonder what me means by that.
Despite the figures that state that women overwhelmingly approve of birth control (97% of women have used it at one time or other), these candidates are against it. Women are, also, healthier for having birth control and so are babies. Stripped of the exhaustion, health risks, and responsibility of non-stop pregnancy, women can become more effective and productive members of society. All this is so well documented, I am not even going to bother citing it. And it follows that if women and children are healthier and happier, men are healthier and happier. Birth control makes life better for all of us.
So. So what? What? What could these GOP hopefuls possibly be thinking? That the dominant force in politics in the looney-tune right? It's absolutely nuts, disappointingly backward, and downright evil.
And the best thing that could ever have happened to the moderate left.
These GOP hopefuls are counting on women doing as they are told. They are counting on women voting down party lines and accepting their attitudes. They are counting on women being cowed by male centred intimidation and male dominated religious views. They are counting on wives doing what they're told.
But I wonder how many women will slip into that voter's booth, slide the curtain across while winking at their pseudo-dominant husbands, and go ahead and vote for birth control, for human rights, and for a better world for all. How many of them will vote for Obama?
I wonder. Only time will tell. But, in the interim, the more these GOP hopefuls jump around declaring the evil in birth control, the better. Better than them hiding their real views and then trying to inflict them on the world like our prime minister did. At least, women in the States know what they are voting for.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Fighting over what's left.
I tend not to publicly proclaim my voting choice prior to election. Most folks who read this blog would be able to guess that I'll be somewhat left of centre. However, despite the fact that I voted Liberal for most of my adult life, I'm not voting Liberal today.
The Liberals came into town about ten days ago with their stars and their hotshots campaigning in the streets and going door to door. Even Liberal royalty graced us. Well, why, for goodness sake? Under the late Jack Layton, Toronto-Danforth has flourished. And the general opinion of the populace seems to reflect awareness of this. The Liberals have about 19% of the vote, currently. Craig Scott, taking over for the late Jack Layton is expected to win with about 61% of the vote.
I think the Liberals should know how to choose their battles. At a time when the conservative stronghold on the country seems insurmountable and the very defiition of what it means to be Canadian is changing as a result, the Liberals need to show some of that old savvy that made them a political powerhouse in the past. I would have definitely have fronted a candidate in this race but no one needed the push.
Push instead in ridings in which the outcome is uncertain or in which you're not fighting a good man who passed away. Fight in ridings in which Mr. Harper might perceive a stronghold for the Conservatives. Push instead where the current government might notice a change. In taking a stand in Toronto-Danforth, we must seem, to Mr. Harper, like so many children fighting over what's left. Pun intended.
I urge you, instead, to indentify those ridings in which you have a real chance to sway voters, ridings that will hurt the Conservatives if they lose them. Instead of urging me to vote strategically, do your own strategizing first.
The Liberals came into town about ten days ago with their stars and their hotshots campaigning in the streets and going door to door. Even Liberal royalty graced us. Well, why, for goodness sake? Under the late Jack Layton, Toronto-Danforth has flourished. And the general opinion of the populace seems to reflect awareness of this. The Liberals have about 19% of the vote, currently. Craig Scott, taking over for the late Jack Layton is expected to win with about 61% of the vote.
I think the Liberals should know how to choose their battles. At a time when the conservative stronghold on the country seems insurmountable and the very defiition of what it means to be Canadian is changing as a result, the Liberals need to show some of that old savvy that made them a political powerhouse in the past. I would have definitely have fronted a candidate in this race but no one needed the push.
Push instead in ridings in which the outcome is uncertain or in which you're not fighting a good man who passed away. Fight in ridings in which Mr. Harper might perceive a stronghold for the Conservatives. Push instead where the current government might notice a change. In taking a stand in Toronto-Danforth, we must seem, to Mr. Harper, like so many children fighting over what's left. Pun intended.
I urge you, instead, to indentify those ridings in which you have a real chance to sway voters, ridings that will hurt the Conservatives if they lose them. Instead of urging me to vote strategically, do your own strategizing first.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Unless You're Stephen Harper
I have something to confess. I honestly had a bit of grudging respect for the way that the Tories have been handling themselves in the
last few years. I had come to the conclusion that this Tory government is effective and
being guided by deep seated convictions and ideals, that they
are inspired by core values. Even the proroguing. The government's
actions were well within the governments rights and bounds. For me, a
clear understanding of parliamentary process implies a deep respect for
the way this country works and that respect might inspire a wish to do what's best for Canada.
But let me also be clear: I do not agree with many Tory policies, nor am I willing to allow them to change Canada so absolutely that we are all little hyper-capitalists in flash cars. However, I honestly thought that they believed in what they were doing.
Then along came robocall.
Any Canadian who believes in the great gift of democracy must have, as I did, felt a bit sick at the news that somebody (I am not saying who) went ahead and so blatantly tried to interfere with an election. All of us should be wanting answers. If we let this slide, what could happen in the next election? Any kind of misinformation cannot be allowed.
But not the current government. Yes, yes. I'm splitting hairs. Elections Canada is a government agency and they are, in fact, investigating. But what is sad here, is that Mr. Stephen Harper couldn't give a shit. I had this guy totally misread. I honestly thought that he cared about this country and, clearly, he only cares that his party comes out on top. Instead of being the one to wants to know what happened, he calls the robocall accusations a smear campaign.
Robocall is not about rhetoric or party politics. It's about democracy and making sure that everyone has free, unhindered, uncocerced access to their right to vote.
Unless you're Stephen Harper.
But let me also be clear: I do not agree with many Tory policies, nor am I willing to allow them to change Canada so absolutely that we are all little hyper-capitalists in flash cars. However, I honestly thought that they believed in what they were doing.
Then along came robocall.
Any Canadian who believes in the great gift of democracy must have, as I did, felt a bit sick at the news that somebody (I am not saying who) went ahead and so blatantly tried to interfere with an election. All of us should be wanting answers. If we let this slide, what could happen in the next election? Any kind of misinformation cannot be allowed.
But not the current government. Yes, yes. I'm splitting hairs. Elections Canada is a government agency and they are, in fact, investigating. But what is sad here, is that Mr. Stephen Harper couldn't give a shit. I had this guy totally misread. I honestly thought that he cared about this country and, clearly, he only cares that his party comes out on top. Instead of being the one to wants to know what happened, he calls the robocall accusations a smear campaign.
Robocall is not about rhetoric or party politics. It's about democracy and making sure that everyone has free, unhindered, uncocerced access to their right to vote.
Unless you're Stephen Harper.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Wall of the....?
I was mad at my sudoku app the other day; so I decided I would go and get myself one of those convenience store books of sudoku puzzles. Why I would pay four bucks for one little book and insist on paying nothing for my phone app is a reasonable question but, alas, not what I'm talking about today. So, one way or another, I found myself standing in front of a magazine rack for the first time in ages, looking at pictures of scantily clad women and cars. Both the cars and the women were very sexy.
As you might guess, I'm not going to talk much about the cars. They were sleek, colourful eye candy, and, probably, high performance machines. You know what they look like. Magazines have been promoting vehicles like this for some time. Fine. But funnily enough, so were the women. Eye candy, I mean. Regardless of the subject matter of the magazine, cover women stared back at me with vacant faces, partially or mostly exposed breasts, fully exposed midriffs with very low waistlines, and fully exposed legs. Aroused and ready. Always ready. Photoshopped to death, these women bore nary a blemish, were too thin, often had unrealistically long legs, and far too many of them had blue eyes and very light skin. I am sure, just like the cars, despite being eye candy, these women are also to be considered high performance.
It's crazy bumping into a wall like that. I simply cannot believe that any thinking man or woman really thinks that a constant state of arousal is a reasonable dominant depiction of women. Depiction of women in advertising is an old issue that has, funnily enough, gotten worse as the women's movement has dragged, lurched, and at times, stumbled (back and) forward. If you're interested, Killing Us Softly, Jean Kilbourne's ongoing work on the depiction of women in advertising is available on youtube and clearly documents the trend. One may agree or disagree with some of her analysis but one must admit that advertising has changed significantly in the last forty or so years.
Suffice to say that we now walk around in a world in which advertising is putting folks in a constant state of arousal. And, just as in shock films or pornography, the subject matter must become increasingly more bloody or tittilating to get the same effect because, of course, it's human nature to become innured to ongoing sensory input. So, now on these magazines and posters and billboards, we are long past any idea of real women and are completely lost in impossible fantasy, leaving half the population feeling insecure and scared that they can't measure up and the other half hopelessly unfufilled. So both halves buy tons of stuff to make them feel better. I understand that the trend to uberperfection is starting to affect images of men in advertising. Yikes. What will we do in a world in which none of us feel empowered without the right deodorant or face cream?
We scoff about, looking for something to blame. Usually, we blame the patriarchy even though it takes two to tango. I am more inclined to blame lack of reasonable laws and lazy advertisers. We just need a few laws that require folks selling snake oil to (yikes!) sell the oil not sex, similar to broadcasting laws. So for me, it was not the Wall of the Patriarchy I walked into, it was a wall of advertising.
Now, I know I am suggesting regulation and I know I am not blaming men. So a few of you might not be happy out there. That a lot of you might yell about free speech. Or the rights of manufacturers or marketers or of capitalist interests. Or what's the problem, don't women want to be portrayed this way? Or, how can you NOT blame the patriarchy? Or, god, really? You want to INCREASE the size of the government? But I think that reasonable limitations are good. Because right now the depiction of women is not reasonable. And if men think they are immune, they should think again. It won't be long until all of use are looking for a cream to keep their skin impossibly blemish free. And paying through the nose.
So, faced with that magazine wall, I did what most of the advertisers probably did not want me to do. I turned around and walked out of the store (despite the fact that I found - off the side and close to the ground - a little clutch of puzzle books). I opted, instead to reconsider my initial stance on buying apps and, while doing that, I would just use the old one. Cause I don't want any snake oil with that.
As you might guess, I'm not going to talk much about the cars. They were sleek, colourful eye candy, and, probably, high performance machines. You know what they look like. Magazines have been promoting vehicles like this for some time. Fine. But funnily enough, so were the women. Eye candy, I mean. Regardless of the subject matter of the magazine, cover women stared back at me with vacant faces, partially or mostly exposed breasts, fully exposed midriffs with very low waistlines, and fully exposed legs. Aroused and ready. Always ready. Photoshopped to death, these women bore nary a blemish, were too thin, often had unrealistically long legs, and far too many of them had blue eyes and very light skin. I am sure, just like the cars, despite being eye candy, these women are also to be considered high performance.
It's crazy bumping into a wall like that. I simply cannot believe that any thinking man or woman really thinks that a constant state of arousal is a reasonable dominant depiction of women. Depiction of women in advertising is an old issue that has, funnily enough, gotten worse as the women's movement has dragged, lurched, and at times, stumbled (back and) forward. If you're interested, Killing Us Softly, Jean Kilbourne's ongoing work on the depiction of women in advertising is available on youtube and clearly documents the trend. One may agree or disagree with some of her analysis but one must admit that advertising has changed significantly in the last forty or so years.
Suffice to say that we now walk around in a world in which advertising is putting folks in a constant state of arousal. And, just as in shock films or pornography, the subject matter must become increasingly more bloody or tittilating to get the same effect because, of course, it's human nature to become innured to ongoing sensory input. So, now on these magazines and posters and billboards, we are long past any idea of real women and are completely lost in impossible fantasy, leaving half the population feeling insecure and scared that they can't measure up and the other half hopelessly unfufilled. So both halves buy tons of stuff to make them feel better. I understand that the trend to uberperfection is starting to affect images of men in advertising. Yikes. What will we do in a world in which none of us feel empowered without the right deodorant or face cream?
We scoff about, looking for something to blame. Usually, we blame the patriarchy even though it takes two to tango. I am more inclined to blame lack of reasonable laws and lazy advertisers. We just need a few laws that require folks selling snake oil to (yikes!) sell the oil not sex, similar to broadcasting laws. So for me, it was not the Wall of the Patriarchy I walked into, it was a wall of advertising.
Now, I know I am suggesting regulation and I know I am not blaming men. So a few of you might not be happy out there. That a lot of you might yell about free speech. Or the rights of manufacturers or marketers or of capitalist interests. Or what's the problem, don't women want to be portrayed this way? Or, how can you NOT blame the patriarchy? Or, god, really? You want to INCREASE the size of the government? But I think that reasonable limitations are good. Because right now the depiction of women is not reasonable. And if men think they are immune, they should think again. It won't be long until all of use are looking for a cream to keep their skin impossibly blemish free. And paying through the nose.
So, faced with that magazine wall, I did what most of the advertisers probably did not want me to do. I turned around and walked out of the store (despite the fact that I found - off the side and close to the ground - a little clutch of puzzle books). I opted, instead to reconsider my initial stance on buying apps and, while doing that, I would just use the old one. Cause I don't want any snake oil with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)