I don’t know about you, but I’m exhausted.
Trying to keep up with the news can be tiring at the best of times, even without the double-whammy of a Canadian federal election and a U.S. president who flip-flops more than a live trout in the bottom of a boat. Herewith a couple of thoughts on both.
“Pierre Poilievre has a women problem” was the headline of a recent editorial in a Canadian national newspaper. In it, the author looked at why the federal Conservative leader is not doing nearly so well with women as he is with men; indeed, the older the cohort of women surveyed, the worse Poilievre does, with women aged 55 and older the ones most likely to say “Um, no.”
I’ve been thinking about this, particularly as I fit into that women 55 and older category, and my conclusion is that one of the reasons Poilievre is faring so poorly with women in that age group is because he reminds them of every single man who has condescended to them, dismissed them, patronized them, ignored them, belittled them, mansplained to them, and exuded an aura of “Don’t you worry your pretty little head, I know what’s best for you” throughout their lives.
Women who lived through, or can remember, a time when they could be denied bank loans, mortgages, and credit cards, or could be legally fired for getting married, having children, or reaching a certain age, or could legally be raped by their husbands because marital rape wasn’t a thing, have been around long enough to develop a pretty good internal radar where men are concerned, and Poilievre sets off all sorts of alarm bells.
Before anyone sneers “Oh, women and their feelings,” or makes a derogatory comment about “women’s intuition,” I’ll note that in navigating the world, women spend a lot of time assessing dangers, threats, and things that generally make them uncomfortable. It isn’t always conscious — women don’t go around on high alert at all times — but it’s running in the background, and it’s the accumulation of a lifetime’s-worth of this information that triggers alarms.
So if a woman in your life says she finds Poilievre — or any other man — “creepy,” or just doesn’t trust him, it might be worth digging into this a bit, rather than dismissing it. For proof of this, look no further than south of the border, where lots and lots of women have been sounding the alarm about the convicted sexual assaulter who is now president of the United States, and who is a living answer to the question “What would happen if you put a profoundly stupid and vengeful narcissist in charge of the world’s most powerful country?”
Please, do not — as so many of his defenders claim — say that 47’s on-again, off-again, now they’re this rate, now they’re that one, “These things are exempt oops now they’re not oh never mind they’re exempt again” pronouncements demonstrate his mastery of “the art of the deal.” This is a man who has a string of failed businesses behind him; he bankrupted casinos, for heaven’s sake, and those things are a licence to print money (there’s a reason why we say of casinos “The house never loses.” Put 47 in charge and they will.).
He's not playing 3-D chess and looking three moves ahead. He’s not even playing checkers and looking one move ahead. He’s playing tic tac toe with a chicken, and the chicken is winning. There is no overarching strategy, there is simply stupidity and score-settling, with a heaping helping of victimization thrown in for good measure. Listening to a man who inherited $400 million and leads the richest, most prosperous country the world has ever known whine about how hard they both have it makes me want to throw up.
“May you live in interesting times” is the old proverb/curse. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to try living in a much less interesting time for a while. It wouldn’t be nearly so tiring.
