u/Plus-Meaning-7484

Men and Boys Were Constantly Left Out of Workers’ Rights in Ontario

Men and boys were left out of workers’ rights in Ontario

Ontario’s labour history is usually taught like a simple story of progress: child labour laws, factory laws, minimum wage, the eight-hour day, modern employment standards. But that version hides something ugly. A lot of early “worker protection” was never written for workers as human beings. It was written around children, girls, and women, while older boys and men were treated as the disposable labour class.

Starting with the 1884 Factory Act. Ontario banned factories from hiring boys under 12 and girls under 14. Children under 14, girls 14-18 and women were limited to 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week. Meal-break protections applied to these children, young girls, and women. So a boy would age out of those protections at 14 and be pushed into the adult male labour category, while girls and women remained legally protected their whole life. At an age we would now clearly recognize as still being a child, a boy was not seen as a human being, but as a resource for the state.

In 1920, Ontario created minimum-wage protection for many female workers, but not male workers. A labour board was organized to evaluate women’s labour rates and set a minimum wage. In Toronto this was roughly $12 to $12.50 per week. By 1937, Ontario had 438,500 male non-agricultural wage labourers with no wage protection at all. Many were married with dependents, and some earned less than the legal minimum set for a single woman in Toronto. Ontario finally gave itself the power to set male minimum wages in 1937, but by the end of 1939 it had used that power only once: for male textile workers, at about $832 a year, or $16 a week. For most men, the “right” still did not exist in practice.

In 1944 Ontario finally created an eight-hour day and 48-hour week for covered workers, but the law still carved out whole sectors: agriculture, railway and steamship workers, stevedores, commercial fishermen, municipal fire departments, most professions, domestic service, wartime industries, managers, supervisors, and others. Many sectors that employed primarily men or boys. So boys and men in those sectors could still be left outside basic hours-of-work protections. This is not the history of men and boys simply “having rights.” It is the history of male suffering being normalized, male bodies being used, and then that exclusion being written out of the story.

Even today Ontario still prioritizes women and girls through a women’s forum, other programs, and funding streams. All based on the premise that it is women and girls who have been disadvantaged, who have been oppressed, or held back. Fewer boys still graduate high school, the majority of drug overdoses are male, the majority of suicides are male, and much more. The NDP, Greens, and Liberal parties of Ontario all have gender equity sections that only mention women’s and girls’ issues. Which leads them to then make the claim that men are targeting women via GBV since they don’t recognize or see the GBV men and boys face.

I also know of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930. That denied rights to many men. Once again showing that men’s rights, in this case workers’ rights, were never granted to them because they were male. In fact, governments worked to deny men and boys these rights so that they could benefit from them as a disposable group.

What did the history of workers’ rights look like in your country? Were men and boys denied equal protection there too?

reddit.com
u/Plus-Meaning-7484 — 4 days ago

Incel Culture and the Montreal Shooter

As some of you may know. Recently a 25 year old man shot and killed a police officer. He left a 105 page manifesto outlining his beliefs around hypogamy, capitalism and more. Now there was mentions of women's place in society and how capatlism and I think feminsim took women away from men.

I don't have the strength to read his whole manifesto. But the online talk is all trying to label him as an incel. They are trying to point out how many times he mentioned women, while ignoring he mentioned other aspects of society much more. They are mainly trying to drive home the point that this is incel ideology or incels hating women.

There was even a protest in Montreal protesting incel ideology.

All I want to say is that no one online will actually care about what caused this and politicians will use this as a way to further hate in men and boys. Including villianizing incels more, without seeing them as human. This will be used to disenfranchise men and boys more.

The Standing Committe on the Status of Women recently released a report on Combating Anti-Feminism. Which they did not host any commenters who would speak to the real problems with feminism. But instead hosted dozens of so called experts who framed Anti-Feminism as men wanting to put women back in the kitchen, etc.

All I know is that this attack won't be seen as a way of addressing the issues men and boys face or there mental health. But as a lightning rod to attack maucilinty, frame this as the manosphere corrupting boys and more.

Yet I know not a single commenter has watched the following video on real incel experts talking about who incels are and what they need. Instead they will go read the manifesto and seek out the conclusion they want to see.

https://youtu.be/c8bZ7up1BRg?si=uCHKYFFdPmecDj8E

Btw, I am not condoning his actions in the slightest. just that from what I've gathered his list of targets didn't mention women. but I know this will be used as a way push us further away from helping these young men in an honest and understanding manor.

I guarantee if Canada took boys education seriously. if they had a Minister for Men and a Standing Committee on the Status of Men. if they fixed the laws that discriminate against men and boys. This young man wouldn't have lived the life he did.

u/Plus-Meaning-7484 — 9 days ago

Confronting Antifeminist Ideologies in Canada

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/451/FEWO/Reports/RP14170991/feworp06/feworp06-e.pdf

I just wanted to share this report by Canada's Standing Committee on the Status of Women in Confronting Antifeminist Ideologies in Canada.

I encourage you all to read it yourself. It's a bit of a tough read, but not a surprising one.

But in it it's clear they have no idea what Anti-Feminism actually means. They try to conflate that men and boys are drawn to Anti-Feminism do to a belief that women shouldn't have rights, or that we should role back women's rights.

They talk about how anti-feminists want to put women back in the kitchen and see them only as stay at home mothers. They never talk about how feminsim and women's rights have actually created inequites that men and boys face. No they can't see feminsim has any flaws.

Such as how FGM is criminalized but not MGM. How Canada has a Minsiter for Women, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and probably 10s of billions of dollars spent specifically on women and girls. All of this is designed in such a way to minimize the struggles that men and boys face. So that funding and the creation of programs must only flow to women and girls.

The only help that men and boys recieved when it comes or gender equality or equity. Is to attend healthy masculinity courses that tell boys about patriachy theory, try to sell them feminsim is if it cares about men and boys. Where your role is to be allies and fight for women and girls issues. They don't even honestly talk about or raise awareness about how those boys and men are negatively affected by systematic discimination. How they will experience IPV, GBV or even how to recognize when they male friends are experiencing these. No it is complete about educating them on feminist orthodoxy.

Last month I wouldn't have described myself as an Antifeminist. But with the creation of this report and the drive to push for more bigoted and prejudicial treatment of men and boys. Combined with the fact that men and boys can't get help or have there problems seen as real inequites. Being Anti-feminist is to be an egaltarnian because feminism in Canada has become the greatest oppressive force to men and boys getting the help and recognition they need.

I am an egaltarnian. I believe in human rights for all and that everyone should have these rights defended and protected. Canada gets a failing grade when this comes to men and boys and most of that blame falls on the feminist orthodoxy that has full control and power of the Government of Canada.

reddit.com
u/Plus-Meaning-7484 — 18 days ago

The Government of Canada cares more about Anti-Feminism then it does for Men's Health

Edit: the title should actually be "The Government of Canada cares more about Countering Anti-Feminism then it does for Supporting Men's Health"

Sorry bad framing.

Recently, the Government of Canada asked for submissions to Canada’s first Men’s Health Strategy. Those submissions are now closed, and the government is currently reviewing them.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/healthy-living/improving-health-men-canada.html

Canada has had a Women’s Health Strategy since 1999. Canada also has the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, FEWO, which was established back in 2004. This committee works with advocates on women’s issues, and one of the ways it does this is by calling for submissions on different studies, like the impact of COVID on women, women’s unpaid work, and more recently, anti-feminist ideology.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/FEWO/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13147239

This is the part I find hard to ignore. When FEWO works on one of these issues, it calls for the same type of submissions that were called for the entire Men’s Health Strategy. So, to put it another way, all of men’s health was given a similar level of public consultation as one singular issue being addressed by FEWO.

Or anti-feminism has already been given more time, structure, and institutional support by the Government of Canada than men’s health.

Canada is not getting better for men. The Men’s Health Strategy already had tokens of feminism in it, and even seemed to spend more time talking about how men need to change than how the system needs to change. Men need better help-seeking. Men need better behaviours. Men need better attitudes. Men need better masculinity.

But why is that always the framing? Why is it so hard for our institutions to ask whether men and boys are being failed by systems, not just by their own choices?

To me, feminism is an ideology just like any other ideology. It is not sacred. It is not above criticism. It is not automatically the same thing as equality. People should be allowed to challenge it, reject it, criticize it, and be openly against it.

Especially because feminism is not the same thing as egalitarianism. When Canada criminalized FGM but not all infant genital mutilation, that is something a feminist framework can still call gender equality. But an egalitarian framework cannot accept criminalizing FGM while leaving MGM legally permitted.

That is one of the clearest examples of the difference.

Being anti-feminist is not the same thing as being anti-equality. In many cases, I see anti-feminism as the more egalitarian viewpoint because it recognizes where feminism fails to meet the standard of actual equality. It shows how an ideology can move from being inclusive to being regressive. You remove the human element from an issue and make it only a gendered issue. Suddenly, protecting girls from non-consensual genital cutting is treated as obvious, while protecting boys under the same principle is ignored, minimized, or justified.

But with FEWO studying and addressing anti-feminism, it feels like we have entered a post-secular period of feminist ideology. A period where criticizing, being against, or challenging Christianity, oh sorry feminism, is increasingly framed as hate against women.

I often feel like I live in a world where I cannot honestly speak up or challenge the existing paradigm. When I see actions like this from my own government, it makes me feel like my secular views are dangerous and could get me in trouble. Canada appears to be moving toward a world where these views are treated as hostile, the same way Christianity once treated science and secularism as hostile.

Funnily enough, as an atheist, I do not feel the same way about religion. Canada has never had an openly atheist Prime Minister, but I still feel like I can express my opinions about religion in a more honest manner than I can express my opinions about feminism.

I do believe women need a Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I am not arguing that it should not exist. But I also believe Canada cannot be a healthy society without a Standing Committee on the Status of Men.

The focus on anti-feminism is a perfect example of why that balance is needed. If Canada had a Standing Committee on the Status of Men, there would be another institution able to push back when criticism of feminism is framed as something wrong, dangerous, or hateful. There would be some balance when one committee tries to define opposition to feminism as a problem to be studied and addressed.

Right now, that balance does not exist.

And that is the problem I wanted to put out there for this community. Because from where I am standing, anti-feminist ideology appears to matter more to the Government of Canada than men’s health.

At the very least, anti-feminism has had more institutional support than men and boys have had. And when anti-feminism becomes taboo, or when challenging feminism becomes treated like challenging the accepted doctrine, then we are walking right back into the Dark Ages.

Not because people do not have access to evidence, science, studies, or data. But because institutions are deciding which conclusions are allowed before the conversation even starts.

That is not progress. That is ideology protecting itself.

reddit.com
u/Plus-Meaning-7484 — 26 days ago

Canada's Men's Health Strategy Questionnaire

Hey all,

Canada is looking for feedback on there Men's Health Strategy. They are looking for responses from all those who would be happy to submit them. These submission can come from anyone around the world who cares about men and boys.

I wanted to repeat the call for submissions and inform this group about this Health Strategy. Another user posted about it a few weeks back. But you have until 11:59pm on June 1st to submit your response with you would.

I just wanted to throw out the psa. Again anyone can write a response, not just Canadians.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/healthy-living/improving-health-men-canada.html

reddit.com
u/Plus-Meaning-7484 — 1 month ago

What would your Government do or look like if they actually Cared about Men and Boys in your Country?

I wanted to see all yours opinions and ideas on what your government would look like if they actually cared about men and boys. If say you were to grade them on what they do. What would an A look like if they addressed men and boys issues?

I'll start. In Canada I would expect to see the following:

  1. Criminalize Male Genital Mutilation

  2. GBA+ should be able to identify and fix the former and current legislation that needlessly exlcudes men and boys

  3. Add male job classes to the Pay Equity Act, update the purpose section and adapt the make up of the committee so it applies both ways and sets a floor for the male representatives the same way it does for female reps

  4. Expand the Employment Equity Act to all Canadians and define groups versus sub-groups

  5. Abolish the Feminist International Assistance Policy

  6. Challenge actions like the creation of the COVID task force that was 100% female simply because slightly more women lost jobs

  7. Create a Minister for Men and Gender Equality on par with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality

  8. Create a Standing Committee on the Status of Men on par with the one for Women

  9. Apply an intersectional and GBA+ lense to all party platforms that treat gender equity as a zero sum game

  10. Challenge how parties grant certian groups special treatment. Like the NDP have Equity cards, making it so no more then 50% of signatures for party leader can come from cisgender men. The Liberal party of Ontario creating women's only riding. Etc

  11. Change the language of the Canadian Research Chair program so that it can apply to all Canadians and does not allow itself to only ever apply in one direction. Strike down the ability for it to deny men the ability to apply, especially when a department is already female dominated

  12. Update legislation that forces companies to seek out equity in a one directional manor. Such as making it so that the requirements apply equitable to all Canadians and adapt to the make up of the workplace and don't rely on a weak assumption that only certian groups face inequity. These are the requirements for grants, loans and other payments from the federal government

reddit.com
u/Plus-Meaning-7484 — 1 month ago

Young Men in Ontario may be able to Challenge for Discrimination in Car Insurance Rates

This post is about men under 25 in Ontario, and for parents paying car insurance for their sons.

**This post is also not legal advice. It is simply a breakdown of the case law surrounding gender based car insurance premiums and how you might be able to challenge them via the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Ontario auto insurers can still charge young men more than young women with the same driving record if the insurer can justify it under the insurance exception in Ontario’s Human Rights Code.

A challenge would likely go through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The main case is Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992.

The complaint came from Michael Bates, a young unmarried male driver. He argued that Zurich charged him more than a young unmarried female driver with the same driving record, and more than drivers over 25.

The original Board of Inquiry agreed with Bates and found discrimination. But the case eventually reached the Supreme Court of Canada, where the Court split 3–2.

The majority allowed Zurich’s pricing system under the insurance exception. But the important point is that the Court still treated the pricing as prima facie discriminatory.

Two justices dissented. Justice L’Heureux-Dubé argued that Zurich had not proven a causal connection between being young, single, and male and being a higher driving risk. She also pointed out that Zurich already used more individualized factors, such as accident record and distance driven, for drivers over 25, and that Zurich had not shown why those same kinds of factors could not be used for drivers under 25. Justice McLachlin also dissented, arguing that Zurich had not proven there was no practical alternative to using discriminatory criteria.

That matters because this was decided in 1992. Insurers should not be allowed to rely forever on a narrow 3–2 ruling based on old evidence.

CAA quote test

I tested CAA’s quote system by getting two quotes with the same information and changing only the sex of the driver.

This was one specific quote profile:

Vehicle: 2017 vehicle bought new in 2017

Mileage: roughly 200,000 km

Driver age: under 25

Accident/claims history: clean for 1–9 years

Insurer: CAA

Variable changed: male vs. female driver

The results were:

Male driver under 25: $590/month

Female driver under 25: $376/month

That is a difference of:

$214/month

$2,568/year

For this specific quote, the male price was about 57% higher.

This does not prove every young man pays exactly $214 more per month. The difference could be higher, lower, or much smaller depending on the vehicle, mileage, address, coverage, driving history, claims history, whether the person is the primary driver, and the insurer.

But in this test, when only the driver’s sex was changed, the under-25 male quote was much higher.

I also tested an over-25 profile, and the male and female quote were the same.

As the judges stated, being male does not cause dangerous driving. Males might be more likely to be dangerous drivers, but there is not a clear causal link to being male and being a dangerous driver.

A young man can also have a clean record and still be charged more than a young woman with the same profile. That is not individualized risk. That is sex-based group pricing.

Which according to the two dicenting judges may be grounds for a challenge. This challenge can only come from an indivudal who has been charged more due to there gender and had to happen in the last year. So if you are 26 years old and less than a year ago your insurance premium was higher because you are male you can challenge the tribunal.

What you can do:

If you are an under-25 male driver in Ontario, try getting two quotes from the same insurer where everything is identical except sex. Or if you current have a premium, trying getting the equivalent one if you were a female driver.

Save the results.

If the male quote is higher, you may want to contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre or consider filing an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The argument is not that every insurer charges the same difference. The argument is that insurers should have to justify sex-based pricing with current evidence, not rely forever on Zurich. The dissenting justices already pointed out the weakness in 1992: Zurich had not proven a causal link, had not proven there was no practical alternative, and already used individualized factors for drivers over 25 while charging under-25 males more as a group.

For me I was looking for a way to challenge this on a provincial scale. Such as forcing the Government of Ontario to ban all sex based car insurance premiums by proving there are practical options being used today for those over 25. But my research shows that that is not how the system works in Ontario and only indivudals can challenge when they face discrimination.

This challenge also doesn't force a change to the whole system, just your own insurance premiums. But if this post is helpful, maybe one of you is willing to fight it and win. And if you win, that sets the precedent for others, making it easier for them to challenge.

Further, if we assume my quote for $214 is a standard difference and applies to a driver who is 18 with a G license. From the age of 18-25 that driver will pay roughly $18,000 (7 years x 12 months x $214 a month) more for car insurance than a comparable female driver.

So depending on how much more you pay for car insurance, it may be extremely economical to challenge it.

Sources:

Ontario Human Rights Code:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h19

Ontario Human Rights Commission summary of Zurich:

https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/discussion-paper-human-rights-issues-insurance/case-summaries

Supreme Court of Canada decision in Zurich:

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/895/index.do

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario:

https://tribunalsontario.ca/hrto/

Human Rights Legal Support Centre:

https://hrlsc.on.ca/

reddit.com
u/Plus-Meaning-7484 — 1 month ago