Kim Siever’s Blog

My version of our son’s birth story

Post author By Kim Siever
Post date 24 April 2012
1 Comment on My version of our son’s birth story

This is crossposted at Siever.ca, our family site.

I’m starting to think going to the temple is a labour inducer.

The day Mary went into labour with Aoibheann, she and I had gone to the temple. With Quillan, who was born early yesterday morning, we had gone to the temple the day before (actually, one of the things we did there was have the marriage of my great great grandparents sealed for time and all eternity; they had immigrated to Canada from Austria).

Shortly after I started supper, Mary came to me with a feeling she might be going into labour soon. A few minutes later, she came back to confirm it. After supper, we had the children clean up the house a bit (do dishes, sweep, put away laundry, etc), then we sent them to bed. I knew I was teaching seminary the next morning, so I prepared my lesson after they went to bed. I wanted to get that finished early.

Labour progressed fairly slowly and it was less uncomfortable for Mary than the other labours. Around 23:00, Mary started spending more time in the washroom. She would have a hot bath, walk around some, and so forth. Within the hour, labour started to pick up more, and she knew it would be a standing birth (like Aoibheann).

Mary leaned on me for support as she switched from standing to squatting, but then eventually moved into the tub for a hot shower. About 01:00 or so, she asked me to join her in the shower, and I did. She leaned on me, and I massaged her back and shoulders. As she felt the baby descending, I sat on the tub floor to catch. It is very uncomfortable to sit in a tub while another person is in it trying to stand with legs apart to birth a baby, but we somehow managed our impromptu game of Twister.

About 01:35, Mary felt a sudden urge to push. One moment, I see no sign of him, and the next moment, opps, there he is. I placed one hand behind his neck and shoulders, and the other under his bum. I felt a bump in the latter hand, and I had a sudden thought that he could be a boy (our last two were girls, and we had only one boy). I turned him and confirmed he was a boy.

He was healthy, pink, and screaming. He had his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck, so I simply lifted it over his head, and handed him to Mary.

She sat with him on the toilet while she waited for the placenta to come out and nursed him almost immediately. He was our earliest nurser. I dried off, got dressed, and woke up the other children to come see their baby brother. They were all pretty excited.

After the placenta came out, we cut and clamped the umbilical cord, and I took him to the bedroom to clean him up (he had already passed meconium), and get him dressed. After the excited settled down a bit, we sent everyone back to bed, and I got a couple of hours sleep before having to get up to go teach.

Quillan is a healthy baby boy, and we are happy to have him in our lives.

Politics

6 reasons I’m voting Shannon Phillips for MLA of Lethbridge West

Post author By Kim Siever
Post date 20 April 2012
6 Comments on 6 reasons I’m voting Shannon Phillips for MLA of Lethbridge West

I hate the party system. Well, more specifically, I hate what it has done to our political system. We now live in a time where everything revolves around the party.

We cannot discuss politics without others assuming we belong to one party or another. Politicians represent their party to us instead of us to their party. The Senate has lost its way and is nothing more than an extension of the Parliament.

Anyone who knows me well, knows I am a non-partisan voter. I vote based on candidates, not the party they represent. It’s tough though because no one ever sees that; all they see is the party of the person I vote for. No one party ascribes to all principles that are important to me; each major party stands for things I believe in, but when I try to say such-and-such party stands for so-and-so, I am painted automatically as a supporter of that party. And that frustrates me.

After all, if I stand for gay rights, it doesn’t make me gay. If I defend women, it doesn’t make me a woman. If I try to speak for black people, it doesn’t make me black.

Until today, I have been undecided regarding who I would vote for, and I have struggled trying to make a decision. Some candidates made it easy. One candidate removed me as a friend on Facebook when I questioned one of his posts. Two candidates use the MLA position as a stepping stone to advance their political career. Two of the candidates, when asked what assurances they could give me that they would represent me over representing their parties, sent me to their parties’ websites for their stance on the issue.

That being said, it was still a tough decision, but here is why I finally buckled down today and made the decision to vote for Shannon Phillips.

First, Shannon was the only candidate who sought me out. She contacted me personally early in her campaign to actually sit down with me and discuss politics. No other candidate did that. I received no unsolicited, personal emails from any other candidates. I received no unsolicited, personal emails from any other candidates. No other candidates came to my door. Shannon was the only candidate who made me feel that my vote was actually important to her.

Second, when asked whether she would represent the constituency over the party, she said she would. Unlike some of the other candidates, who tried to slide out of answering the question by sending me to their parties’s websites, she actually outlined not only why she would do so, but why an environment exists to allow her to do so.

Third, her background in politics and policy means she is intimately familiar with the political process and how the Legislature works. She doesn’t need training. She is ready to hit the ground running. She isn’t using this opportunity to advance from alderman, to mayor, to MLA, to minister.

Fourth, last night, after the Chamber of Commerce forum ended, Shannon was the only one of 9 candidates who left the stage immediately to be at her table to meet with constituents. Everyone else stayed behind to chat with one another, as if it were an old boys club or something.

Fifth, she is intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-spoken.

Lastly, she is feisty. She is determined, and she has shown that she has real passion and a willingness to stand up for people. She works very hard and doesn’t expect to assume she has votes. She has a tenacity that assures me she will stand up for her constituents.

It took me a long time to decide who to vote for, and I nearly ran out of time, but I am confident I’m making the right choice for Lethbridge West.

Tags lethbridge, ndp

Theatre

Why I think theatre should be subsidized

Post author By Kim Siever
Post date 12 March 2012
No Comments on Why I think theatre should be subsidized

I think theatre should be subsidized. There. I said it. And I know many will disagree with me.

Many people I know think theatre (and all art for that matter) should be at the very least cost-recovery and at the very most revenue generating. This is a popular stance among those who view theatre as a form of entertainment. There are certainly forms of theatre that seem to be exclusively, if not solely, designed to entertain. Broadway, musicals, some theatre festivals are all designed to attract as many people as possible and make as much money as possible.

That’s fine I guess if that’s what you want to do. Certainly, there’s a market for it. The question remains, however: does the market exist because of consumer demand, or do consumers exist because of market indoctrination?

What motivates popular theatre (like Phantom of the Opera, for example)? Do they create it solely for the revenue? Mainly for the revenue? If so, what does that say about the quality of popular productions? Does it have substance? Does it nourish our soles in lasting, meaningful ways, or does it just make us laugh and gasp fleetingly?

I don’t believe the primary purpose of theatre is to entertain. If it were, why must we go to the theatre to watch it? Why must it be live? Why can’t it be recorded in perfect, sanitized form and shown on a screen?

I believe the primary purpose of theatre is to effect social change. I believe theatre for centuries (including Shakespeare and Molière) has been about ridiculing and questioning social norms, positing progression of civilization, and establishing equalities and liberties. I believe theatre still fills this role today. I believe we must go to theatre to watch it because we need to experience it. We need to take what we see and hear (and touch and smell in some cases) and analyze it according to our current world views; we need to use it to take inventory of our own paradigms and see if there are ways we can change.

Because I think theatre is for effecting social change, I don’t think ticket sales should determine what content graces the stage. Similarly, I don’t think universities or colleges should be revenue generating; they, too, are about exploring ideas and embracing change.

As soon as vehicles for making change are motivated by revenue, the system that makes the revenue gets to decide what ideas get to be taught and ultimately what changes get to be made. In effect, theatre becomes counterproductive.

I accept there’s a place for commercial theatre and companies should be free to produce such works. I think it’d be a failure, however, for every theatre (and by extension, every play) to follow this pattern.

Playwrights, directors, and actors should be free to explore, criticize, analyze, incite, and effect.

Sexism and women studies

Lethbridge needs to abandon “alderman” for “councillor”

Post author By Kim Siever
Post date 3 March 2012
No Comments on Lethbridge needs to abandon “alderman” for “councillor”

{EAV:bfe22a5c2d268e2c}

A group of citizens will present to Lethbridge City Council this Monday, advocating for changing the usage of “alderman” as a term for city council members to “councillor”. I support this change.

The equality of women has become more important to me as I have been back in school. I have taken several courses that discuss women’s right and feminist theory, and it is clear to me that while we have made strides in women being treated better than in the past, there are still institutional changes that need to be made before the hegemony of our patriarchal system is gone.

There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding this proposed change, and there are a few common arguments I wanted to address:

This will cost too much money and that money could be spent on more important things.

The costs of this change in terms of money and time is negligible if the change is done when the next council is elected and most of those changes have to be made anyhow. Also, calling the equality of women unimportant (or at the very least, less important) does nothing to further their equality.

“Alderman” is a term that has come to refer to both men and women. It makes no difference what they’re called.

If it makes no difference, then why is there even a debate? The fact that people consider a male-dominated term like “alderman” to be acceptable for both genders is further evidence of how embedded the hegemony is in our society. Additionally, if the term doesn’t matter, then I assume supporters of maintaining the status quo would be fine with using “alderwoman” instead to refer to both male and female city council members.

There are more pressing issues requiring the time and attention of city council members.

Certainly there are issues requiring more of the attention and time of the city council. This is precisely why this non-issue should be dealt with. It will take hardly and time, we can be done with it, and city council can move onto the so-called more important issues.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

The problem is that it is “broke”. Period.

Supporting the change is the socially responsible thing to do. There is no compelling reason to keep the archaic “alderman.” The Municipal Government Act uses “councillor,” and so do many communities across Alberta, even many smaller and more rural than Lethbridge.

Tags lethbridge, sexism

Poetry

Book Cover

I saw a laugh jump from his mouth, a tear fall from his eye.
I saw him run, and climb, and jump, and cross the brooklet by.
I saw him cheer a lonely face; I saw him make a friend.
I saw his hands building love, his eyes compassion send.
I walked with him; I talked with him; I shared with him my mind.
I laughed with him; I played with him; he returned in kind.
I camped with him; I ate with him; my wisdom did impart.
I rowed with him; I drove with him; he’s ever in my heart.

Sexism and women studies

Facebook memes and sexism

I like to think I have been sensitive to gender equality, violence against women and the like for some time, but I have to say that the women studies course I took this past semester hammered a lot of things home.

I see sexism and discrimination against women in places I previously would have overlooked and in things I previously would have found funny.

This past week has been pretty hard for me. I have seen many of my friends participating in Facebook memes that denigrate and objectify women. When I do try to stand up against such, I am the one labelled as being insensitive and told I should lighten up.

I am very fed up this week and I am disgusted more each day that goes by to the point I feel sick to my stomach and my hands shake.

Here are a few of the images my friends have posted:

This one tries to make light violence against women. Strictly speaking it’s spousal abuse period, but since I am a man and the friend who posted it is a man, I saw this as directed at women. Besides, as the saying goes, it’s a dog is man’s best friend, not human’s best friend. It is never okay to laugh at the idea of stuffing one’s own spouse into the trunk of a car.

This is sexist in several ways. First it treats men as prizes (You’re all mine if you plan to marry in the temple. It treats women as objects of desire (if you aren’t going to get married in the temple, you don’t get me). It trivializes the sacredness of temple ordinances.

This perpetuates the stereotypes of women being emotionally unstable, and it ties so-called manhood to men being accepting of emotional abuse.

This objectifies women and glamorizes sodomization, both of which together promote sexual violence against women.

Yet another one objectifying women. This one goes even further by presenting women as objects that can be eaten. And why is it women have to wait for men to come along; why can’t they initiate relationships?

Finally, this one is sexist on several fronts. First, it promotes emotional instability in relationships. Second, it promotes the idea of women being owned by men. Finally, notice how the male progresses from boy to gentleman, but the female in the relationship remains a girl? Also, notice the female in the relationship is a girl, but the females outside of the relationship are women.

What disturbs me the most is that those who post these images are completely oblivious to the sexism contained within them.

And the sexism isn’t confined to just these images either. Every day, it seems, someone I know posts similar photos. New photos. The cycle continues: Someone promotes violence and sexism in their images and other perpetuate their messages by sharing them.

In all sincerity, what is there that can be done?