Thursday, August 24, 2006

“Eliminating the Status of Women”

Remember my post the other day about Janke and his Conservative friends wanting to eliminate the federal government’s Status of Women Agency? Well it turns out that it’s not just one Conservative blogger behind the idea. In fact, it wasn’t even his idea in the first place, he’s just doing the bidding of what our Conservative friends would call “the special interests”, as CP reports today (h/t John Murney):

Status of Women agency under attack in blogosphere
JENNIFER DITCHBURN
Canadian Press

Ottawa — Several pro-Conservative Internet blogs have signed onto a campaign to eliminate Status of Women Canada, a Trudeau-era federal agency that promotes women's equality and advancement.

The campaign was kickstarted by REAL Women of Canada, one of Canada's most vocal organizations of social conservatives. It has long urged the federal government to axe Status of Women — but this time its message is being widely discussed and supported among some in the Conservative Internet community.
(more)

Stay tuned to hear lots about that evil Liberal MSM…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

17 comments:

SilverWinger said...

"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

The Big Guy says when he comes back to the station after a Christmas give away turkey drop from a helicopter.
WKRP in Cinncinati.

SilverWinger said...

OOps wrong posting.

Anonymous said...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/24/194223/480

Irishwitch at Dailykos has a diary up describing two cases of women who needed the kind of services Status of Women supports. Please read. Granted these are american stories, but women everywhere face these situations today.

CBC had a story just last nite about families from India who migrate to Canada then return to India with their marriage-age sons to arrange for brides. They then demand dowries and right after the ceremony demand an increase in the dowry. When the bride's parents refuse, they go back to Canada without their brides and divorce them. These young women are then left to bear the shame and humiliation of divorcee status which is stigmatized in India.

This is the type of thing SOW supports.

The complaint is they do nothing for stay-at-home Moms. Well, these Mom's don't need support. Obviously, their husbands love them and support them in their wish to raise their own children.

Then there are the single Moms who even here in Canada have to raise their children with the stigma and listen to all the statistics that tell them their children face greater risks. Who will support them in their quest for equal status and the daycare that will allow them to earn a living or further their education. SOW does.

- Blackstar

SUZANNE said...

How about getting India to enforce its own laws? That can be done through foreign affairs.

How about getting Indian women's groups to help them through another agency? CIDA can help them.

We do not need a SOW to do that.

The complaint is they do nothing for stay-at-home Moms. Well, these Mom's don't need support.

It's the Status of WOMEN agency. If it's not about women, in general, then it should be called by its rightful name-- the radical feminist agency.

Then there are the single Moms who even here in Canada have to raise their children with the stigma and listen to all the statistics that tell them their children face greater risks. Who will support them in their quest for equal status and the daycare that will allow them to earn a living or further their education. SOW does.

I have no objection to having single moms be trained. But we do not need a SOW to do this. We have a plethora of other departments to do this, and they won't do it in the name of feminism.

SOW does this, not in consultation of a WIDE variety of groups-- it's only groups that fit one ideology that are consulted and whose opinions are deemed important. THAT is the big objection. They are not representative of women in Canada as a whole.

Anonymous said...

Just today StatsCan releases figures that say 1/3 of women in Canada are the major breadwinners of their families.
What the study didn't make clear was how many of these women as breadwinner households were headed by a sole woman, single mother, widow, etc., with no man involved. That is an important factor.
A few weeks back we heard that Albertan women are the most stay-at-home types, actually increasingly dropping out of the workforce.
If it wasn't for the Status of Women many women would still be earning minimum wage, not just %78 of same job vs male wage.
If this knee-capping of the Status of Women agency progresses to an actual bill for its abolition, Canada will see a backlash from women of all walks of life it will never forget.
The Status of Women Council does much good work, and it doesn't require a woman to kowtow to anyone, depend on a man, join a religious group, ascribe to a philosophy or political party, or join anything except the Canadian public.
Anyone who has a problem with this needs to re-evaluate their own standing in the country called Canada.

Mark Francis said...

"It's the Status of WOMEN agency. If it's not about women, in general, then it should be called by its rightful name-- the radical feminist agency."

Radical?

Pejorative label alert!

Anonymous said...

Who keeps saying it's "radical feminists", versus feminists, versus women who want equality, versus women in general?
Calling it SOW (an inherently Albertan and/or redneck expression I have often heard used to disparrage women) is a paltry attempt to diminish and demean the Agency.
It won't work.
It's not about "radical feminists" nor is it about shutting out women of religion; it is about equality of women of all stripes, ages, races etc... in Canada.
There are women who have never, ever stood in a picket line, protested, or walked in a march who will get out there to support the Status of Women Agency unto the death. Just today I mentioned to a middle-aged woman the current attack on the Status of Women Agency and she said "over my dead body," and she meant it. She'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends,...
Not every woman (or child) can, will or are able to stay home or depend on a man: what skin off your nose is it if this agency helps women you care nothing about? Where's the beef?
The taxpayers of Canada collectively fund warmongering, defense spending, corporate welfare. A paltry $23 million, just about as much as was recently gifted to Lebanon for restructuring...
The right whingers better be careful treading on the hard-earned rights and freedoms of the women of this country. This IS Canada, women included.

Anonymous said...

This is part of what REAL women stand for:

"3. To promote, secure and defend legislation which upholds the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and family life.
4. To support government and social policies that make homemaking possible for women who, out of necessity, would otherwise have to take employment outside the home."

Whichever women do not fall under these categories are sh*t out of luck.
REAL women are in for a real smackdown if they think that Harper's 30% or so minority will give them leave to steamroll the millions of Canadian women who don't fall under REAL's umbrella.

You know what? If there were more REAL men out there, you know, those family guys... the ones who don't impregnate and run, who don't prey on teens, who aren't running around behind REAL women's backs, bringing HIV/AIDS on home, etc... REAL women might stand a chance. Keep it at home, or in your sewing circles and your churches, ladies...
For now, given the statistics, Status of Women Agency is a STILL a necessity in this country. Even if it actually helps non-religious women, athiest women, whichever women you are not prepared to step up to the plate for.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes, let's go back in time. Without so-called radicals women wouldn't have the right to vote, there would have been the civil rights movement in the U.S., I would have tossed in my bra for nothing.

It's about rights - a woman who can afford has the right if she wishes to stay at home, a woman who can't afford it will have to work and she has a right for day care help, equal pay for equal work, education to further her career, and the list goes on.

This is not putting down the homemaker (which is an honourable choice if that's what a woman wants). It's about choices - fair and equal choices. It's about protection (victims rights). It's about women fighting for and protecting each other.

REAL women all have the same body parts, hormones, but not all have the same choices in life and we need to broaden the fairness of these choices with help of the so-called special interest groups.

I think it's nice that women are "special" and we have groups to keep it that way.

Anonymous said...

I wonder, if special interest groups bother these so-called REAL women are the anti-abortion, one-man-one-woman marriage, Christian Coalition type groups included?

Anonymous said...

Suzanne - How about getting India to enforce its own laws? That can be done through foreign affairs.

The fact is Suzanne, it is India that has charged these men because Indian families are banding together and fighting back in the Indian courts. 1000's of Indian families. The documentary was clear on the fact that Canada is doing nothing to stop these 'Canadian' men from this extortion racket. If you watched the film, you would know this and be qualified to comment. My point was that, the Status of Women supports women "like this" here in Canada, who are being abused. That is part of their mandate. I gave the Indian example because I had just watched this and it was a fresh example of the situations women all over the world find themselves in, including here in Canada, where apparently, we allow newly immigrated "MEN" to go home and abuse their women from the "SAFETY" of Canada.


Suzanne - It's the Status of WOMEN agency. If it's not about women, in general, then it should be called by its rightful name-- the radical feminist agency.

Of course it isn't about women in general. Even you must be able to admit that there are good men who honour their committments. Their women don't need extra help or support. However, even those women who are not in danger or at risk owe their voting priviledges, the fact they can wear pants and cut their hair, that they can go to school and become whatever they want or get any job they dream of, they can be depressed and not have some male doctor diagnose them as hysterical and remove their uterus with out their consent, etc. etc., owe the so-called radicals. Yes, radicals. As in women with guts and determination who were willing to endure a great deal of severe opposition to have a better, fairer life.

Suzanne - I have no objection to having single moms be trained. But we do not need a SOW to do this.

How big of you. Do you have any idea WHY there are so many single Moms? Have you ever examined this issue beyond your own little self-righteous group? Why do you hate women and children who have so much less than you and have endured so much more than you obviously know about? Educate yourself, then speak out. Otherwise, stuff a sock in it.

You complain that it doesn't help all women - in my opinion any woman who has no desire to reach out with compassion to another is the one who doesn't want to help all women. Because every woman helped benefits all women everywhere. You yourself, are enjoying benefits today because some woman somewhere was helped.

- Blackstar

burlivespipe said...

If these REAL WOMEN really wanted to sink it to the Status of Women dept they'd allow for a Status of Men's dept, where I'd be encouraged an enabled to leave my employer and be a lazy m****erf***er, stay at home dad if i want to be. Oh and I'd start up my own Apostles of the Apathetic Church, where the congregation would get together and have healing circles, with $5 stakes...*
Is there nothing that the Tories don't want to alter about today's modern world? How about working on that self-refillable beer stein instead of touching these honourable institutions.

* The above was only meant as self-deprecating humour and was not intended to offend anyone but myself and those Conservative supporters who feel they are being suppressed by institutes and policies which provide help and solutions for people from all backgrounds.

A BCer in Toronto said...

As I said in the earlier thread on this topic, if you feel the agency isn't doing its job, or is unfairly doling out grants, that's one thing. If that's the case reform it instead, that's no excuse for killing it, because its stated goals and purpose are admirable, necessary, and not yet mission accomplished

If however, you feel somehow that the stated goals and purpose are either complete, or not a good idea all together, then that's another story, and I think you're very wrong. If that's what you believe at least be honest and up front about it, don't use a smokescreen about grants to cover your reason for wanting to elininate the agency.

Anonymous said...

anonymous said: "Well, these Mom's don't need support"

so nice of you to unilaterally decide this. Lemme guess, you also think all SAHM's have rich husbands, too, right?

I thought that SOW was supposed to help ALL women...my mistake. It's only the women who have the same ideology as them. So who is being discriminatory now?

Anonymous said...

Which anonymous poster brought "rich husband" into a debate on the feasability of the Status of Women Agency of Canada?
"I thought that SOW was supposed to help ALL women...my mistake. It's only the women who have the same ideology as them. So who is being discriminatory now?"

It is REAL women who are being discrimanatory, and for you to say otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Even you, if and/or when necessary, can count on the Status of Women Agency of Canada to take your complaints seriously. If you need shelter, you will find it. If you need help to address a wrong done to you in the workforce, it is there.
What can you tell me that REAL women will do to help a 25 year old ex-crack addict, ex-prostitue, and mother of three? What will REAL women do for this person?
F A is what. Invite her to a bible study in your home? Yeah, okay. Give her a hand up? Not even a hand out if she won't go to Bible study or jump through your oh-so-feminine hoops.
REAL women are so out of touch with the average Canadian woman, it would be laughable if the bare facts weren't so stark about what is actually happening to bona-fide women in Canada.
REAL women are out to lunch.
Real Canadian women will kick their butts all the way to church and back, and twice on Sundays.
I find it appalling that these REAL women think that their blue-eyed leader speaks for Canadian women.
There's going to be a lot of hurting going on. Real Canadian women are going forward, not backward, and REAL women better shape up for the run, or ship out. Or perhaps lean on their rich or not husbands for support.
Good luck, ladies.

Anonymous said...

"Which anonymous poster brought "rich husband" into a debate on the feasability of the Status of Women Agency of Canada?"

that would be me...the previous post to mine said that SAHM's do not need any help...so I asked if he thought that all SAHM's have rich husbands, too. I was being sarcastic because he seemed to assume way too much about how SAH's lives are like. Most do not have "rich husbands" but together decided that having a parent stay home with their children was what was best for the child- compared to the child being raised by an ECE who has no vested interest in my child's upbringing other than the salary they receive.

Of course REAL is discriminatory- but so is SOW. to think otherwise is stupid. But if they both discriminate why does one get funding and the other none? Level the playing field and have no one get money.

I'm lucky and resilient. I've not had to go to SOW, who perpetuate the idea that women are victims. When I had a labour complaint, I went to the ministry of labour.

SOW does not speak for me when they only give funding to support national daycare and ignore any other LEGITIMATE forms of care, including staying at home. I stay at home. It is my choice. If SOW is all about increasing women's abilities to make CHOICES in her life, they should support ALL women's choices, not only the ones that fit nicely in their anti-men/anti-family ideology.

Tell me, how can women demand society treat women as equals when we cant even treat OURSELVES as equals within our own gender???

"F A is what. Invite her to a bible study in your home? Yeah, okay. Give her a hand up? Not even a hand out if she won't go to Bible study or jump through your oh-so-feminine hoops"

and...

"Real Canadian women will kick their butts all the way to church and back, and twice on Sundays."

wow...so you just assume i'm some religious nut, huh? I'm atheist. So sorry to burst your presumptuous bubble. It'll probably knock you over when I tell you I'm pro-choice and have no problem with gay marriage, either.

"Real Canadian women are going forward, not backward, and REAL women better shape up for the run, or ship out. Or perhaps lean on their rich or not husbands for support. "

why are they going backward? because some women choose to stay home and do the traditional family? Why does this scare feminists so much? It is their CHOICE. No one is holding a gun to their heads. Just because you do not like it does not make the choice wrong. For someone who's ideology screams "TOLERANCE" so much, you are not demonstating it to others.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 4:23 PM

Are you part of REAL women? Are you looking for a handout or a handup? What would you like the Status of Women to do for you?
Stay at home if you like. It's your choice, as long as you can feed any children you choose to bring into the world.
You said: "Most (SAHMs) do not have "rich husbands" but together decided that having a parent stay home with their children was what was best for the child." There you go. Together you decided. Good for you and your family. Simply because you have this choice does not mean that any woman can do the same, and that is where the importance of SWC comes into play. It's all about helping women (and offspring) who do not have the luxury of deciding to stay home and have the bacon brought to them. It's about equality for women who find themselves working in a world where often they are mistreated, maltreated, cheated and marginalized.

This is what REAL women support:
# To promote, secure and defend legislation which upholds the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and family life.
# To support government and social policies that make homemaking possible for women who, out of necessity, would otherwise have to take employment outside the home.

Well, here's a newsflash for you: the men in REAL women's equation are falling down on their responsiblities in DROVES. What are these women to do? Go to church?
Church is all well and dandy, but it doesn't feed children or provide a home or an education. You know, the sort of things that single mothers find themselves doing for their children. Tell me, if such a woman joined REAL, will you give her the chance to make "homemaking possible for women who, out of necessity, would otherwise have to take employment outside the home"?
I doubt it.
When you can tell me that REAL women support ALL women, that day I will personally protest on the lawn of the Parliament that the Status of Women Canada agency provide REAL some funding.
Until then...


Oh, and calling it "SOW" shows an inherent lack of respect for not only the English language, and the women who may need their services, but also lets the average reader know your "take" on the issue before you have gone farther than a made up acronym.

P.S., Tell me again how SWC can help women who choose to stay at home? Is there a need? An issue to bring forth to the SWC? If so, write a letter, tell them your story and likely you will be helped if you need it. What is it you need?

Peace