And we're back! I would apologize for skipping these past two weeks, but this blog is largely for myself—more a practice of discipline and experimentation than a "gift" to my readers. That said: still love you—whoever you are anonymously reading this. And I can apologize for the lack of communication! Two Sundays simply came and went and I either was extremely busy or very far from a writing mood (I had one more hangover—aiming to make it my last of 2021).

With all that out of the way—we're back. Let's talk.

I just got back to Toronto having spent three months in B.C. When I left, I didn't have much to say about the lockdowns here. They sucked, but they were what they were—necessary evil and all that. Now, having spent time in a place where the rules aren't as strict, I'm less forgiving.

My current take is: I can fully accept rules and regulations put in place to protect people. I said it in a previous post (was it here—or on medium?) that the government has to step in; we (the people) lack the collective responsibility to make our own decisions about what risks we should take right now. Without the rules, thousands more people would die in Ontario—I get that.

What I DON'T appreciate, is the government deciding what constitutes an essential product or service. Decide what is and isn't safe—sure, all you. Decide what's important in our lives—nah, that's not your job.

Who gave a small group of people in city hall the authority to say that dental cleanings are crucial, while haircuts are frivelous? When did they get the power to say all the small shops on Queen St are unimportant, while letting people pour in and out of McDonalds?

I don't like that part. When their mandates switched from "what is and isn't safe," to "what is and isn't essential," they overstepped. I get why they did it, but I don't like it. They're also doing a real shit job of it, which does not help their case at all.

As we enter a strange and confusing "modified lockdown" phase of the pandemic, government officials have more power than ever. When it's a sweeping lockdown and everything is shuttered, that's one thing. This is different. Now that we CAN sit on patios, but we can't go inside a boutique art shop, things are weird. The nuanced control these officials are flexing is...it shouldn't be their juristiction.

Either sitting in a chair—dental or salon—is safe enough or it isn't. When and old dude in public office decides for me which one is "worth the risk," I start to bristle. I don't like it.

And hell—let me stop making it about myself. I don't think the government should decide whether a business owners' livelihood is worthwhile. I can't begin to imagine the frustration of someone who dedicates their life to creating a product or service of value for the world—only to be told it's not important enough for people to risk visiting you. Meanwhile, McDonalds is important enough—despite being a WAY more dangerous place than say, a bookstore? Who gets to decide that? John Tory and Doug Ford?

I don't like it.

OK, part two: here we go.

(I'm stalling because I don't know what I want to write about. I have two things on my mind and likely won't explore both today. OK I decided.)

I'm going to poke around with the idea of "nuance" in today's big issues. I first rolled it around my head when I heard the phrase, "defund the police," and it recently resurfaced with citations of the gender pay gap on International Womens' Day.

I don't know where I stand on over-simplifying things.

My first reaction to Defund The Police was, "this is going to backfire." I thought it was too provocative, and not an accurate enough depiction of what the ask really was. Opponents would form all over the place, simply as a reaction to the word "defund." Sure enough, people who I'm sure would support the ideas behind defunding the police (training alternate responders for situations like mental health crisis'; preventing encounters from turning into these militarized engagements). But they heard, "defund," and they thought, "no no, if anything, they need MORE funding for better training." Just like that, the conversation broke down, and because people rarely talk to each other (instead talking in their own echo chambers), people didn't realize they were on the same side.

But it does catch attention, doesn't it? And it should have started conversations. I'm sure it did. Some people did take the time to break down what the phrase really meant, exploring the nuances. But a LOT didn't. They said, "defunded police means easier time for criminals," and that was the end of that. They didn't even have to talk about half-crazed guys in body armour wielding semi-automatic rifles barging in on someone having a mental health breakdown. They only had to deal with the phrase, "defund the police," instead of all the complicated baggage behind it.

Part of me thinks we ought to be more nuanced in that first communication—the cathphrase part—just to make it harder to opponents to dismiss it.

That's the thought that popped up again last week when I saw pay-gap posts on social media, because I've heard that stat get dismantled and dismissed in much the same way.

I can't remember who it was—maybe Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris or Joe Rogan; someone passing themselves off as being clear-headed and rational about the issue (you know, I'm sure it was all three and a thousand more guys like them)—anyway, they would pick apart the disparity and show it to be perfectly non-sexist.

"It's about the jobs we skew towards; the risks we're willing to take; the time off for raising families; a genetic pre-disposition to aggression! Sexism doesn't actuallty exist in the workplace—the pay gap is mainly due to choices we make!"

It's really easy to make that argument in a compelling and objective-sounding way. It's easy for guys (like me) to eat that up, then scoff when the stat is brought up, and ignore allllll the issues that do exist.

So, part of me thinks it wise to make those simple arguments more difficult to throw together. Part of me thinks it best to do away with the sweeping, high-level messaging that opens the door for easy-outs.

But part of me also recognizes that it's a hella-bright red flag—blindingly-blight when looking at pay disparity for women in minority groups. When a Latina woman earns 55% of a white man, it says something. If nothing else, it says, "come look at this."

And this is where I'm torn on this figure: it says "something is going on," but it doesn't say it's an issue, and it lets the apathetic among us create (flawed) arguments saying, "it's not an issue." All they have to do is pull one study from Sweden that says, "women are more likely to choose caregiver jobs," and act like that explains everything. Nevermind the societal influences that push them towards certain roles and away from others; nevermind the harrassment and mysoginy that is way more prevalent that we admit; nevermind the allocation of funds to different jobs, as set by white men decades ago (I could write another thousand words on how insanely underpaid teachers and nurses are).

Nevermind all of that. It's easy to simply say, "the pay gap is caused by the choices men and women make," and the guys listening (who wanted to believe that from the start) nod and walk away satisfied.

So, should people stop using that stat? I'm still struggling.

How about this: try not to use them in isolation? Provide enough support that makes it harder to dismiss figure outright?

I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't even be focused on this side of the argument. Maybe I should just scold the lazy responses from those "let's-just-look-at-the-facts" guys.

I mean, it shouldn't be anyone's job to convince a misogynist that he's wrong. It should be on him to get his shit together. But that's not how this works. Everyone has their own problems; they're better served thinking yours are overblown; they'll ignore them if they can. If you want someone to change, you have to hold their hand.

Is that fair? Nope. Should you have to spoon-feed people and coddle them into becoming allies? Nope. But here we are.

Do I know what I'm talking about? Nope.

But if a year or two ago you'd asked me what I thought about defunding the police, or about the gender pay gap, I'd have waved them away. I had my talking points. I had it on good authority that I was rational and right. I wasn't being an ass; I was just being objective.

So, I guess I know a bit about being on that side. I know how easy it is to buy into comfortable stories about how there's nothing wrong with the world. And I know how to win me over. It's not terribly hard. It just takes a bit more nuance than a slogan.