All Posts Tagged With: "hobbies"
Tickled beige by the Liberal ‘Pink Book’
Probing the merits of the third ‘Action Plan for Canadian women’
I’m a little confused; I thought “pink for girls” and “blue for boys” went fringe a while ago. Isn’t it supposed to be Tonka Trucks for little girls and Barbies for little boys now?
Well, nevermind. The Liberal Women’s Caucus has released their third (poorly titled) volume of recommendations to improve the lives of Canadian women. The 38-page document outlines a series of Liberal policy positions on women’s health and safety, social equality and role in the economic sphere. The ongoing premise is that “The situation for women is rapidly deteriorating under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government,” and a new federal Liberal government should consider the Caucus’s policy recommendations.
Though I take issue with some of the Pink Book policies and look dubiously toward its latent irony (but more about that later), I don’t want to minimize or undermine its theoretical relevance. That is, though I’m uncertain of the real benefits to be reaped by a women’s Pink Book, I fully respect the organized and productive expression by self-perceived marginalized groups. Therefore, I’ll dissect it, criticize it, and question its objectives, but I won’t call it irrelevant.
My feelings on the Pink Book are mixed. Sure, the idea of an action plan for Canadian women sounds nice, but I’m having trouble swallowing some of the spin. (And I’m not just talking about gallant claims like, “Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence.” I’ll leave that alone.) One tendency I find problematic is how many Canadian issues described in the pink pages are passed off as selectively women’s.
Finding a family doctor is “one of the major difficulties women face,” reads page 22. The need for a national care-giving strategy to provide relief for women is outlined on page 23. Page 25 recommends new programs to prevent and provide support for domestically abused women.
Here’s my question: how is a national doctor shortage a women’s issue? Perhaps women, more often than men, are the ones seeking out family doctors, but should we really put a gender focus on this problem? A national care-giving strategy—I’m totally for that. I’m sure husbands and fathers are too. What about male suffers of spousal abuse? Where’s the “Blue Book” on that? Many of the causes and recommendations in the Pink Book seem legitimate, but to label them all “women’s issues” seems a little disingenuous. Why segregate, rather than unite, to tackle these issues?
Here’s my other issue with the Pink Book: it seems to dispute (albeit, inadvertently) my power as an autonomous female citizen. Take this example:
“Girls generally are not encouraged to enter hard sciences, technology or the trades,” reads page 21.
“The National Liberal Women’s Caucus therefore recommends that a new Liberal government develop a coordinated strategy and support mechanisms to encourage girls and women in science…”
Call my reasoning fallacious, but I can’t help but see the above “call for assistance” as a concession that girls and women can’t make it on their own. Think of it this way; fifty years ago, women were dropping out of universities to get married. Now, more women than men are applying to (and enrolling in) medical schools. If that change could happen without a “coordinated federal strategy,” why should the government be directly involved now? (Sorry, is my libertarianism showing?)
Personally, I don’t care much for an action plan written on my behalf with a flower printed on each page. Sure, women are disadvantaged, but so are men, children and seniors. Should women really be calling for special consideration? To be honest, I’m not really sure. But I do think that to be perceived as equals, women in government should present themselves as equals. And we “regular women” should continue to look critically at the ways we’re being represented. That means taking off the rose-coloured glasses.
When distractions turn into careers
Watch for the turning point, and for opportunities outside your area of study
I’m getting together later this week with the guy who designed my website. We were both undergrads at the time and he was, I think, studying something in social science. Now he manages a team of web developers. The other day I spoke on the phone with another friend who graduated several years ago. He was in drama, and did odd jobs cutting grass and removing snow as his part-time job. Now he runs a successful landscaping business with nine trucks on the road. A good friend who started her first year in woman’s studies and subsequently rewrote the constitution and by-laws of our campus woman’s centre just joined me in law school. The list goes on and on.
It’s a long accepted truism of university education that most students don’t stay in the areas of study they declare as their minors, majors, and specialties. That isn’t news, right? Surely you don’t imagine that the thousands of students enrolled in psychology each year are all going to become psychologists in any sense. Or that the large number of English students will all become teachers, or English professors, or professional writers. For every student who ends up in a career that is logically connected to her field of study, there are probably two or three who end up doing something radically different. And that’s just fine.
One thing I’ve noticed, however, is that many students are far behind the curve on dealing with this fact. Right around when students are graduating, after their four (or more) years in university, they suddenly poke their heads up and say “hey, what am I going to do with this degree anyway?” And the career office hastens to reassure them that they can work in a variety of fields, and often cites the sorts of examples I led off with, and wishes them well. But the truth is that none of these stories, or the others I could mention, are the results of 11th hour panic. The students who moved smoothly into careers outside their areas of study are those who realized some time ago that their hobbies were turning into careers, and began to approach them as such.
As a new school year starts – whether your first or otherwise – I’d encourage all students to stay alert for the possibility that something you may think of as a distraction from your “real” work and career may in fact be turning into your work and your career. It may creep up on your accidentally but like any career it’s going to require some nurturing as well. You’ll want to start working on contacts who might employ you doing the thing you enjoy doing anyway, or explore necessary certifications, or fill in gaps in your training and experience. If you find yourself at the end of your degree and then start thinking about these things it’s already too late. (For those who are there already – better late than never – but it isn’t the way I’d recommend doing things all the same).
In terms of specific steps you might take to find a career where you hadn’t previously considered one, the possible scenarios are so varied I couldn’t possibly cover them all. But don’t dismiss your university resources as one source of advice and help, just because you’re doing something other than what you’ve studied. Universities may seem a little divorced from reality sometimes but not so much so that they haven’t realized their graduates are going into a diverse array of fields. You may find far more of relevance there than you’d ever have expected, and maybe even a contact or two to help you along.
—
Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. Even the ones I don’t post will still receive answers, and where I do use them here I’ll remove identifying information.
Recession helps wine school lure aspiring vintners
It’s not all romance: wine producers must master chemistry and agriculture
Soured on the real estate market, Columbia broker Bob Walters has found what he hopes is a more fruitful pursuit: growing grapes for wine. Downsized banker Mary Becker also is dabbling in the business, planting vines on the 120 acres south of Kansas City.
The aspiring vintners recently joined more than 60 others from eight states at the University of Missouri’s first Wine School, which teaches the tools of a trade that has been growing exponentially. The federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau reports a 50 per cent increase in the number of U.S. wine producers from about 3,900 in 2004 to about 5,800 in 2008.
Missouri, one of the nation’s leading wine producers before Prohibition, has seen similar growth, and instructors at the University of Missouri say rising unemployment could encourage even more oenophiles to try to turn their hobby into a new career.
“I was quite blown away by how everyone around here was a backyard winemaker,” said Rebecca Ford Kapoor, a New Zealand wine maker who two years ago joined the university’s Institute for Continental Climate Viticulture & Enology.
The school, which focuses on grape growing and winemaking in the Midwest, offers a one-day introductory class and an advanced, three-day course. The one-day session includes an obligatory winery visit (Les Bourgeois in Rocheport) and wine tasting. But most of the time is devoted to laboratory sessions involving beakers and flasks, tips on cellar operations and sanitation and tutorials on identifying and preventing flaws in the winemaking process.
Becker said she and her husband went into winemaking inspired but without technical acumen.
“We had no idea what we were doing,” the Holden resident said. “It’s been a real trial and error.”
Others enrolled in Kapoor’s course quickly realized the business involved more than careering through Napa Valley in a convertible or comparing vintages in a friend’s basement cellar. Successful wine producers must master chemistry and agriculture, she said.
“People think it’s all going to be romantic,” Kapoor said. “It’s actually really hard, dirty, exhausting work.”
