Thursday, December 21, 2006

So, are just the feminists pigs?

The Conservative/conservative campaign against the Status of Women has been ongoing for a few months now, but back when it was first starting on the blogs it was noted with dismay by many that conservatives kept short-forming it to SOW rather than, say, SWC.

Hey, it's just a coincidence they'd say, that's the abbreviation. We're not trying to imply women are pigs, come on, be serious, our clever conservative friends would insist, feigning outrage.

Well, it seems they're feigning no more. Came across this today, ironically the same day I head about Harper's image concerns. It seems the anti-Status of Women people have their own blogroll now:

And take a closer look at the graphic:

Yes, that would appear to be some kind of half woman, half pig hybrid to my untrained eye.

So, to the members of this blogroll I ask: are you saying women are pigs, just feminists, just those
that work at Status of Women? Would that include the Minister responsible, Ms. Oda?

Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

37 comments:

SUZANNE said...

Just as feminists once called men "chauvinist pigs" there is such a thing as chauvinist SOW: a feminist who believes she speaks for all women; who thinks no one but feminists should have any kind of say on women's issues; who thinks conservative (especially social conservative) women are all stupid, uneducated, somebody's stooge, unable to be assertive, independent and are barefoot, pregnant in the kitchen chained to their stoves.

And oh yes-- that Status of Women is essential for the welfare of all women in Canada, otherwise, without it, men will turn into Neanderthals and club women into the Stone Age.

That's a SOW. A feminist so bigoted, she will not see non-feminist women, especially so-cons, outside of her feminist dogma. She cannot believe that non-conservative women deserve any kind of respect.

I do not speak for all conservatives, all conservatives do not speak for me.

The same goes for blogroll members.

And no, Bev Oda is not a SOW. She is no feminist; she does not claim to speak for all women, and she's willing to give non-feminists a hearing.

Miles Lunn said...

I think calling the Status of Women SOW is a bit inappropriate. It might make sense if you believe the group is at the government trough, but I get the impression they are referring to women in general.

Suzanne - Most feminist just want equality for women and are open to different opinions. With any group, you will find people who are intolerant of different opinions including some Conservatives. I don't support such an idea no matter where it comes from.

SUZANNE said...

Most feminist just want equality for women and are open to different opinions.

The ones that run the NGO's and fill the NDP are not open to divergent opinions on some core issues. Just look at Judy Rebick's reaction to Elizabeth LeMay's very moderate comments on abortion. This is not Cheryl Gallant screaming abortion is equivalent to a beheading at the March for Life. This is one self-professed feminist telling another self-professed feminist she does not respect the women's movement.

That's a SOW.

but I get the impression they are referring to women in general.



Somehow, the women on my blogroll, both so-con and not, don't feel it refers to them.

With any group, you will find people who are intolerant of different opinions including some Conservatives. I don't support such an idea no matter where it comes from.

I expect that some people will be intolerant of some opinions. I do not fault feminists for this. I find fault with them for claiming to speak for all women (and they do!), for claiming to work for what women want, but NOT CONSULTING with a broad variety of women-- just feminists-- and requiring the government to fund their agenda, as if the future of Canadian women depended on this one agency (or movement).

It's positively outrageous.

April Reign (aka Debra) said...

It's positively outrageous.

My goodness such vitriol.

I hope you didn't scare the children when your bonnet flew off your head.

skdadl said...

BCer, I speak only for myself when I thank you for this post.

I never know how to answer Suzanne. She projects so much on to me before I have even begun to speak. I am a socialist, a craftworker, a caregiver, who honours everyone else who does noble unpaid labour, as I have, as many women do. So I don't know where she gets her notions of women like me.

We need good allies, though, BCer -- women really do. Thanks again.

Ti-Guy said...

who thinks conservative (especially social conservative) women are all stupid, uneducated, somebody's stooge, unable to be assertive, independent and are barefoot, pregnant in the kitchen chained to their stoves.

...who accuse liberals of wanting to legalise pedophilia, as well. Isn't that right, SUZANNE?

Maybe you should reflect on the fact that your little campaign against democracy and human rights isn't being helped by your lunatic ravings (notice...I didn't call you a pig.)

Just a thought.

April Reign (aka Debra) said...

Yes..quite right.

BCer I was remiss in not thanking you for this post!!

wilson said...

Judy Rebick and Cheryl Gallant represent, to me, special interest groups. The rest of us are somewhere in between.
I find it insulting that a women's group (or any person) would depict any women as a pig (or a bonnet wearing babysitter).

What Judy & Cheryl have done is shut down any real and honest dialogue amongst women.
They both p*ss me off.

Godammitkitty said...

Thanks, Jeff! I hadn't seen that...ecch...'blogroll' before your post drew it to my attention. As for she-of-the-all-caps: I'm not feeding you tonight.
Great blog, Jeff! All the best--GDK/H&O (we met at the get-together in Guelph, this summer!)

SUZANNE said...

Debra:

It's positively outrageous.

My goodness such vitriol.


Yeah, not like the stuff that goes on on Bread n Roses against me and other so-con women. [/sarcasm]

skdadl writes

She projects so much on to me before I have even begun to speak. I am a socialist, a craftworker, a caregiver, who honours everyone else who does noble unpaid labour, as I have, as many women do. So I don't know where she gets her notions of women like me.


skdadl, if you feel I am projecting unfairly, then by all means, please dispel any representation you feel is untrue about yourself. But as for "women like you", I read about you all on Bread n Roses. And while I wouldn't imagine that all Bread n Roses posters (or, Babble or En Masse or Progressive Bloggers, etc) represent all feminist thought, I have a sufficient sample to draw conclusions.

Just take the "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" meme that is so commonly used among feminists to denounce any conservative approach to women's issues.

Do you honestly believe that most so-con women are barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen?

What do feminists say when they don't like government policy on women's issue: "We won't go back to the kitchen".

Like all us so-con women are slaving over a hot stove in the kitchen. (And that's all we do!) and all the servile imagery that accompanies it.

Like none of us EVER have careers (childrearing is only one part of life), do anything the least bit cultural or intellectual, none of us ever assert ourselves, none of us have lives beyond being family women-- or that those who are really into being into mothers are just empty shells.

Frankly, I just think that's more chauvinist than the male chauvinism were spewing at women in the 1960's. Instead of male chauvinists spewing it at women, it's feminists spewing it at so-con women (and conservative women in general). Feminists are saying things that are patently unture about the vast majority of so-con women, and then saying "we don't want to be like you" or "don't vote Conservative because they want you barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen (with the subtext that that's how conservative women are).

I don't expect feminists to agree with me. I expect a little more intellectual honesty, though, considering they're supposedly fighting on my behalf, for me as a member of their minority group, but all I (and other so-con women) get is crapped on and misrepresented.

"Women" to feminists is synonymous with "feminists". When feminists say "women want this", what they really mean is "feminists want this", because feminists don't ask me (or other conservative minded or even just non-feminist women) and they don't attempt to represent them whatsoever.

And to think there's a government agency dedicated to this mindset. Ugh.

SUZANNE said...

GDKitty wrote:

As for she-of-the-all-caps: I'm not feeding you tonight.

You are now.

SUZANNE said...

I hope you didn't scare the children when your bonnet flew off your head.

skdadl, this is the tough that makes so-con women project on you.

Tim said...

Status of Women use taxpayers (my money) dollars to promote their radical anti-family agenda. In that regard they are feeding at the public trough and therefore the acronym fits.

Vek said...

I hope you didn't scare the children when your bonnet flew off your head.

I'd really have to agree with Suzanne on this one. It's exact comments such as these, insults, stereotypes that make the portrait of SoW (as I call it).

The radical feminists are drawn to such organizations, where they can leach off of taxpayer money because they are those who are the most passionate about it. They really don't represent women as a whole, they represent a minority alright, a small minority of women, meanwhile they pretend to represent all women.

Recently, at the University of Waterloo, we changed the name of the 'Womyn's Centre' to the Women's Centre' because the old name was too radical for even the leftists on campus. Those who were opposed to it were only those radical feminists who were drawn to the organization. The motion passed at a general meeting with 70% of the vote, even with the former 'Womyn's Centre' attempting to stack the vote.

The fact is that these organizations don't represent women, they represent special interest groups, and their funding comes from taxpayers money. Those taxpayers come from many different beliefs in our diverse culture, and most of them don't support where their tax dollars are going. Personally, I consider myself a libertarian, and I don't like anybody's money going into causes they don't believe in, whether I agree with the cause or not. It's just hypocritical otherwise.

SUZANNE said...

argh "Lemay" should be "May". I guess I was thinking in French or something.

Hailey said...

There is merit in asking people to use different language when referring to people who hold competing political views. It's not wrong to ask those on the non-feminist side of the discussion to revisit their use of the term "SOW". It is also not inappropriate to talk about how the supporters of the Status of Women are on public record as having referred to women who do not agree with them as "sluts", "cunts" etc. It is difficult to reconcile a potentially reasonable request to avoid the term SOW and their alleged concern about women with such vicious and emotionally charged terminology.

The most compelling reason for the blogroll was that the Status of Women was presenting themselves as an organization that spoke for all women when, infact, they speak for feminist voices and not even all feminists at that.

The outcry over the funding changes was minimal which would certainly suggest that fifty percent of the population did not consider the Status of Women to be a positive valuable representative for their concerns. If half of the population had been concerned about this issue Mr. Harper would have felt compelled to revise his decision.

The reality is that most women do not care if they lost this voice. They didn't see the value of it anyway.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious Suzanne and I'll feed you. But first I have to say to Hailey "The reality is that most women do not care if they lost this voice. They didn't see the value of it anyway." That has to be the saddest thing I've ever read. But back to my curiosity. What are YOUR personal choices for Equality Rights? This question pre-supposes women have not yet reached true equality. And as well I ask for no discussion whatsoever about embryo/fetus rights. None. So again, what are Your personal choices for equality rights?

Roy Eappen said...

If you want to advocate for your position, you should pay for it. Why should I and others have to pay for anti- male , anti-family goals of these organizations? Why shouldn't conservative womens groups also get equal funding?
Third wave feminism is not interested in equality. These feminists wish pre eminence. Many women of today want little to do with the word feminist. They don't hate their brothers and fathers and sons. Ask Senator Ann Cools.
The cuts were an excellent idea.The money will now be used more efficiently.
I belive in equality for women. That means men should also be given custody of children half the time or joint custody, both things opposed by feminists.

Ti-Guy said...

Gah...the same ol' bunch and the same old arguments. I don't know why they bother. They're not changing anyone's minds....in fact, they mobilising resistance against them and they're doing it in a way that guarantees a backlash they probably won't like.

Look at them all...seething and raging in comment after comment, lurking at feminist discussions and progressive blogs...mounting so-con swarms and striking when needed. It's obsessive, angry and frankly...bizarre.

Give it up folks. You're doing more harm than good.

SUZANNE said...

Anonymous asked:

. What are YOUR personal choices for Equality Rights? This question pre-supposes women have not yet reached true equality.

I'd feel like your question would have slightly more credibility if you signed a moniker there.

If you're telling me that women only reach true equality when 50% of CEO's are women, when women collectively earn 100% what men earn (regardless of what jobs they choose, or the market value of their labour) then I disagree. I do not measure equality by the dollar value put on women's work, nor on the positions they occupy in society. Women have reached equality because the average woman who has the talent, the energy and the right guidance can do anything she wants to. Just like a man.

Women are not entitled to the same results as men. If a woman wants the same result as a man, she should do those things that produce the same result as a man. That is equality. If she does not want to do those things, society is not obligated to make up for the opportunity cost. So if she decides to stay home and raise children, society is not obligated to make up for the fact she skipped college and spent ten years having kids. If she decides to pursue a career and puts off childbearing until her forties, and can't conceive, society is not obliged to pay for IVF.

Women have chosen to take jobs that result in them earning 70% of what men earn. The jobs they choose do not have the market value of male-dominated jobs. I would go so far as to say women prefer pink ghetto jobs. They like being daycare workers, teachers, secretaries and so on. If they didn't, they'd do something else. Those jobs are low-paying for a variety of reasons that have to do with basic supply and demand. It has nothing to do with them being filled by women. If men filled those jobs, they'd still be low-paying.

Women are quite capable of doing what they so choose if they decide to do it, and research how to do it. The problem is usually a question of knowledge and behaviour than social structures.

JJ said...

Hey, so, did anybody see Clerks 2? Is it as good as Clerks the original? Cause I'm not sure whether I should put it on my see list... Or maybe I should watch Ice Age sequel instead... but again, was that as good as the first one... did the Ice age come after the stone age? I can't remember...

Scott Tribe said...

I havent seen it myself.. I'd recommend though you buy Season 2 of the West Wing.. you'll get thrills and chills watching it. DVD's have no commercials.. very nice for viewing.

A BCer in Toronto said...

Suzanne, a "chauvinist SOW"? Ok, I hadn't heard that term before. Interesting. I can see what you're trying to categorize, and the origin of the word, but still, just as chauvinist pig is an unfortunate slur to be using, I think so is chauvinist sow. In both the connotation is decidedly negative.

There are legitimate grounds for debate on the issues here. I don't agree with your take, but there's plenty of room for reasoned debate and disagreement. I just think things like pig references and sow graphics detract from that debate, and don't help advance anyone's argument even a bit.

A BCer in Toronto said...

jj, clerks 2 rocked, go right out and buy it now!

Anonymous said...

"Women are quite capable of doing what they so choose if they decide to do it, and research how to do it. The problem is usually a question of knowledge and behaviour than social structures."

Suzanne, are you aware that women now outnumber men in both Bachelors and Masters Degree programs? The problem is certainly NOT a question of knowledge and behavior.

Anonymous said...

Suzanne, your answer has lost me completely. Totally. You didn't even answer my simple question. Oh dear, I am done here I asked a simple question, you couldn't answer without going totally off-topic. As you said "Just like a man". Lord your so sad. Just like a man? I mean really? So we women are just like men? YOUR just like a man? Sad girl, sad.
As for my moniker, you will never have that, you are too reactive to have that. I would never trust you with that information. Your a (politically correct 'reactionry') with no independent thought. I had hoped you would write something reasonable, obviously not possible, not with ridiculous embroyos attached to human bodies, as if they were Einstiens, already full humans. You are truly the most ridiculous creature I have ever met on the world wide web. Channel your energy into something truly human-kind building, because what you are doing is a total disservice to all human-kind. Good Luck! And oh don't forget that all forward-thinking people truly do believe that the money should go to forward-thinking communities, like the human race. But don't give up, not ever, your view is one that current psychiatrists need to write the history of darkness and ignorance. Bye, I shan't be back for any reason at all, so don't bother replying.

Locusta emersonia said...

Suzanne said: "Women are not entitled to the same results as men. If a woman wants the same result as a man, she should do those things that produce the same result as a man. That is equality."

Hey girl, that radiologist or dentistry ticket you got there doesn't count as much as the person with sperm's. Sorry about your luck, but you are not entitled to the same pay per result as the person with sperm's.


Suzanne said: "Women have chosen to take jobs that result in them earning 70% of what men earn. The jobs they choose do not have the market value of male-dominated jobs. I would go so far as to say women prefer pink ghetto jobs. They like being daycare workers, teachers, secretaries and so on. If they didn't, they'd do something else."

Gee whiz, girls, don't let that degree in Economics fool you into thinking you can do the same math as a man. Take that degree and tack it up on your cubicle, or in the daycare tea room. Ms. Teacher, Mr Teacher is doing the same job but since he produces sperm, he gets paid more. PhD's mean nothing without balls. Doctor Ovary, you get a wee-er wage in our beloved "Sperm General" though you are just as good as the next guy, nyuk nyuk.

Suzanne said: "Women have chosen to take jobs that result in them earning 70% of what men earn. The jobs they choose do not have the market value of male-dominated jobs. I would go so far as to say women prefer pink ghetto jobs. They like being daycare workers, teachers, secretaries and so on."

I bet there are quite a few architects, business moguls and real estate agents with ovaries that would kick that fossilised canard to the curb. Ohhh, and you women in the pink ghetto jobs: you picked it, suck it up. That pimply person with sperm who showed up last month, he's making more than you. Start training him asap, and he takes his coffee white.

Seems likely Suzanne doesn't hang around many smart, savvy and powerful women.


Suzanne said: "Women are quite capable of doing what they so choose if they decide to do it, and research how to do it. The problem is usually a question of knowledge and behaviour than social structures."

Uh-oh here we go: the slut card, or a variation on the theme: the canny woman, mysterious woman, the uppity woman, the non-man worshipping woman. The competent hiree with ovaries will now be subjected to behaviour and social structures. And we take our tea in china cups dear, with milk and sugar poured first, of course.


I wonder, do Parliamentary Secretaries rate the same pay scales, or does someone check the gender of each applicant? What happens in instances of applicants with names like Marion Baker, Charlie West, Jesse Smith, Sam Dickens, Alex Monroe etc.?

Suzanne, those are pathetic excuses to make to defend your status quo.

Sincerely, Locusta emersonia

Ti-Guy said...

. If men filled those jobs, they'd still be low-paying.

This is a total crock. First, I'm sure SUZANNE doesn't know this...she just believes it. But anyway, jobs that are not strictly valued by the free market, such as those in the public sector are valued in terms of political worth by a system still dominated by men. Jobs that were traditionally held by men in the past (secondary school teachers, librarians, school bus drivers, etc.) became devalued when women started occupying them and were vulnerable to politically-motivated cut-backs much more readily than when they had been dominated by men.

If SUZANNE wants an intellectually honest debate, she should first try and dispell some of her more curious notions about how work is valued by perhaps reading more and guessing less.

Anonymous said...

You have to wonder about a woman who uses a photo of a fetus as her identity don't you?

I have to wonder what the women who are against the "Status of Women" programme are afraid of. You don't like it, you don't have to deal with it - you are allowed to tackle problems on your own - no one is stopping you.

My sister-in-law bakes for a shelter for abused women and children and when she goes in to deliver her baked goods she said it is amazing how this shelter works at giving them self-esteem, gets them started towards a career by providing clothing for interviews, getting them spruced up and it's just amazing the results.

You see, some women do need the help and get tired of those who are in better circumstances giving absolutely no consideration for the unfortunate.

Easy to criticize when you are better off isn't it.

The Poodle said...

SOW is a derogatory acronym developed by women who feel that the Status of Women office did not serve its real purpose or effect legitimate and lasting change. It would be good of you (the non-conservatives) to remember that the feminist movement as whole has many branches, and that support of the Status of Women office is not a mandatory pre-requisite for considering oneself an authentic feminist.

What I find interesting is the general misunderstanding of what roles the Status of Women office actually did occupy. They did not run shelters. They did not provide legal advice. They did not forgive student loans, arrange babysitters, buy groceries, or help women develop proper job-finding skills. The Status of Women office actually even made this clear on their website, telling all who visited that those services are provided by other groups and that the office would not even provide any references. Now, I'm sure we could agree that these are all things women in need require for any variable situation to improve their lot (even as a whole). So if the Status of Women office was not performing these duties, what were they actually doing?

Ti-Guy said...

They did not run shelters. They did not provide legal advice. They did not forgive student loans, arrange babysitters, buy groceries, or help women develop proper job-finding skills.

And you're surprised by this? SWC also didn't have the bugdet for any of that, which is provided through other agencies.

This is why I believe the anti-SWC'ers simply do not know what they're talking about and are promoting dismantling the SWC on purely socially conservative, ideological grounds.

Derek Remus said...

Whether you're liberal, conservative, or whatever else, it is an objective fact that Status of Women Canada undermines the common good and the inalienable rights of the human person by promoting the democratically decreed extermination of innocent human persons (abortion), by promoting legal recognition for immoral "unions" that undermine the family, and other things.

I can already predict what the reactions will be to what I've just said: "You're an irrational, religious fanatic and a fundamentalist"; "what makes you thing you can impose your morality upon others," etc. :>)

So for the record, the immorality of abortion, homosexual "unions," and the rest of it - just like the immorality of stealing and kidnapping - is not a specifically religious belief, nor is it my personal belief which I am arrogantly trying to shove down other people's throats.

What makes everybody recognize that stealing is really and truly wrong, and not just something that goes against certain persons' personal opinions? The existence of an objective and universal standard of right and wrong called the natural law. It is rooted in human nature and knowable by human reason alone.

Abortion and homosexual "unions" go against this natural law. They therefore contradict reason and are intrinsically irrational. Therefore, I am not shoving my personal opinion down other people's throats; that would be wrong. I am speaking reason and the truth, which exist independently of me.

Legal recognition for abortion and homosexual "unions" undermines the natural right of the person to life and the natural rights of the family, rights which lie at the foundation of society. Therefore, they undermine the common good.

The promotion of a group that performs such assaults against the common good clearly goes against the nature and purpose of civil authority. In fact, the nature of civil authority calls for prohibition of the actions of such a group.

And the aggressive promotion of slaughtering human beings and giving recognition to "unions" that pervert the very truth of human sexuality - the aggressive promotion of unreason, in short - clearly merits the group involved in such active promotion the title of SOW (in addition to being a legitimate acronym, linguistically speaking, for Status of Women :>) .

Locusta emersonia said...

Whatever! Suzanne beaked off and has not responded. Cons can quit trying to muffle or sideswipe the issue that Suzanne made only too clear about her and her political stance about women's place in society. In Suzanne's world, women are always less for some reaon or another, nevermind reality.
Suzanne is the epitome of chauvinist. What she had to say about women and occupations which require no particular sexual organs was ignorant and beyond stupid.
If you do not agree, then I hope you are making sure your next diabetes test is done by a person with sperm.
I wont't even go into the lather Suzanne and people of that ilk would think about a GAY person with sperm doctor, or a transexual lab technician doing a medical test.
People like Suzanne will not be satisfied until they get the power to scrutinize any body's DNA, history, thoughts and emotions before granting that person (hopefully with sperm) any rights at all.
Personally, the longer Suzanne and her ilk stick with people of her own mind set the better. Sooner or later they will downsize themselves to obscurity and oblivion, just as Nature intends.

p.s., didn't we just hear on the news about some married not-gay family man, professional, doctor, caucasian... charged with thousands of counts of child porn? or was that some other country?

Ever so sincerely, Locusta emersonia

Hailey said...

Anonymous you referenced what I said as sad but it's true. If 50% of the public were outraged about it it wouldn't be happening. Most women just don't care. Prove me wrong on that one!

Roy you are correct that an increasing number of young women are choosing to self-identify themselves as NOT being feminist. The hope for change is with the next generation of women who just don't see life in the same way.

And ti-guy I am not sure that you will find that non-feminist voices are interested in hearing how unproductive their voices are from people who call women sluts, cunts, etc but are promoting the feminist movement. That's about the most unproductive thing imaginable.

Feynman and Coulter's Love Child said...

If you need allies like SOW, skdadl, then your cause doesn't deserve any promotion whatsoever.

Ti-Guy said...

Roy you are correct that an increasing number of young women are choosing to self-identify themselves as NOT being feminist.

Oh, dear...the unsubstantiated/unqualifed assertion of the so-con. Every time one of you does it, Baby Jesus cries, you know.

And ti-guy I am not sure that you will find that non-feminist voices are interested in hearing how unproductive their voices are from people who call women sluts, cunts, etc but are promoting the feminist movement. That's about the most unproductive thing imaginable.

That's good, because I'm not addressing you or your cohort, Hailey. I frankly don't care what people who intend to restrict the human and civil rights of others think. I think all of you should be marginalised in the democratic process because you are fundamentally anti-democratic.

By the way, get over it, would you, Miss Prissy? It's a sad little deflection that only ends up proving you don't really have an argument.

none said...

I'm not surprised that cuts to SOW haven't really mobilized women as SOW won't help all women. There's barely a whimper out of feminists right now and this is proof of how ineffective SOW is for today's woman. Time to move on and progress.