1 Honesty, integrity, relevance - all these things are missing from our 'public' broadcaster, they spend all their time and our money attacking the Conservatives. The CBC should be auctioned off to the highest bidder - that would be the only way they could do some good for the country and finally fulfill their mandate.

2 As I commented over on Taylor's blog recently, it's not as if facts have ever gotten in the way of the CBC before. If there is a God, wait until a Harper majority. Then the fun begins.

3 Yay, another brilliant bit of work from the CBC, or should I say propoganda? Thanks for pointing that one out, Steve.

4 Thanks again Steve...your valuable time is again appreciated.

5 I'm glad to see that CBC's blatant anti-Conservative campaigning doesn't go unnoticed. Watching The National on Tuesday made my blood boil -- it is so very, very clear that Paul Hunter, for one, isn't acting as a journalist, but as an advocate. I resent having to pay for this coast to coast, contiuous pre-election Liberal ad-campaign. That they dress it up as news, and pose as reporters, just shows the the amount of contempt that particular tribe holds for conservatives. Ironically, if CBC wasn't force-funded by taxpayers they could never get away with it what they're doing every night -- they would lose too many viewers, and therefore ad revenue, and they would fold like a cheap suitcase. No such problem for The National. Who needs to worry about credibility, when you're payed so handsomely for it's lack?

6 You may be right that Status of Women Canada provided some of the funding to the CCAC. However, I doubt that Monica Lysack is a Liberal since she was present with Olivia Chow at the NDP convention. There may be some fed-up taxpayer types who recoil at the thought of a five billion dollar national child care program. And at $9000 per child it would indeed cost about half as much again as the K-12 public school system. But, ... compare that $9000 to the loss to our GDP and to our international competitiveness of a skilled worker whose productivity is $40,000 a year or more. Simple economics dictates that this nation, like so many others, would benefits from a universal child care program. I am pleased that on Nov 22nd parliament gave second reading to MP Denise Savoie's Bill C303, The Early Learning and Child Care Act. Hopefully when it comes back from committee it will ge speedy third reading approval, and then it will be up to Jack Layton and the Bloc to keep the Liberals onside and pressure the Conservatives into funding the program.

7 Lysack works for the Liberal Party, not for parents or their children. Follow the money. If you get sued for this, I'll laugh *really* hard.

8 "There may be some fed-up taxpayer types..." Oh THEM again. Doncha wish they'd just shut up and pay for everything like they're supposed to ?

9 Keep yankin' it, Wanke.

10 Sue yourself, in the pike position. SOW was founded near the start of Trudeau's first reign and has been at the trough ever since; Lysack's organization, which promotes Lib-style ideas about daycare, is funded by SWC. In effect, the taxpayers pay for advocacy groups who promote the same ideas that are floated by the LPC in their promises to the electorate. Then the anti-Conservative noise made by these advocacy groups get covered, coast-to-coast, by taxpayer-funded anti-Conservative journalists, who attack those who oppose ideas floated in LPC promises, etc. There's a lot of funded groups that are the offspring of the Liberals. These don't cease to exist immediately upon a change in government. There's still a lot of people and groups who are in effect still working for the Liberals.

11 Hey, sorry for going OT here, but can someone please tell me how you do italics on this site ? I hate using upper case as a substitute (makes it seem like I'm yelling).

12 I believe the Libs promised a Universal Daycare program back in "Da Redbook I". It was back then the CCAAC and other groups like them should have been holding the gov't to the fire. It is clear the Libs were never going to create the program primarily because even they recognized it would cost too much money.They have just never admitted that to the electorate. If they promise to continue promoting this program during the next election they will have to explain how every child under 6 can be given a spot in a daycare for the same money as the Tory plan when by their own admission the Tory plan is a hardly a drop in the bucket. The Torys could remind parents that in order for the Libs to progress with their plan they would have to claw back the $1200 rebate with what..a pie in the sky chance that their child may get a spot in 10 yrs. It appears to me that daycare is a provincial jurisdiction anyways.

13 This Monica is a bitter, arrogant condescending advocate of government-raised kids. I've seen her on TV, the hostility is palpable. She's more Dipper than Librano. The 'child care crisis' is another over-hyped issue. As for CBC, they're a lot like Monica and they really haven't progressed much since the old pancake and soundstage days. They always remind me of a cloudy day, kind of like Moscow. The way I see it, if all of these parasites took a hike or - gasp! - got real jobs, the economy might imnprove to the point where urban families could afford to have one parent stay home. How's that for a childcare program?

14 Budd Campbell's back! So how do "Simple economics dictate that this nation, like so many others, would benefit from a universal child care program"? What early childhood education and/or daycares do for kids is give them a leg-up for the first year or so of school, but these kids soon level off to where the others are shortly thereafter. The "benefits" (sic) I've seen from kids put in daycare as infants or toddlers is that they don't respond to adult instruction--in fact, they become deaf to adult voices--and are perfectly "peer-oriented" by the time they're five. Read Gordon Neufeld and Gabor Mate's book "Hold Onto Your Kids: Why Parents Matter" (that is, why parents are better for their "early childhood" kids than daycare workers) and get a good sense of why "children are not quite the same as we remember being. They seem less likely to take their cues from adults, less inclined to please those in charge, less afraid of getting into trouble. ... Through the ages adults have complained about children being less respectful of their elders and more difficult to manage than preceding generations, but could it be that this time it is for real?" (quote from the dust jacket) Just talk to kindergarten teachers today. Many of them are freaked out by the behaviours they're encountering IN THREE YEAR OLDS (I'm with upnorth; how do I italicize?). For all that the Budd Campbells and Monica Lysacks complain that we don't have enough daycare positions for tiny tots, we have more kids in substitute care than ever before, and the results are not reassuring. We don't need more substitute care for kids--though universal, publicly funded daycare would sure provide a lot of daycare jobs and more funds for pro-daycare advocacy groups--we need more parents staying home with their kids to give them one-on-one attention. The Left has a horror of parents caring for their own kids, and until PMSH and the CPC's putting childcare dollars into the hands of parents for them to make decisions about the care of their children rather than Big Daddy Government doing it, families, like mine, were penalized, through the unfair taxation system, for caring for our own children. The Left likes to indoctrinate tiny people with their ideas, which is why entrusting them to their own parents has never struck them as a good idea. That Budd Campbell actually thinks that Canada "would benefit from a universal child care program," "like so many other [countries]," is pure myth. Please provide proof of this statement, Budd. Which countries have benefitted from universal childcare programs. The Soviet Union and Israeli kibbutzes tried it a long time ago, and found that their children became, on a universal scale, dysfunctional and unstable.

15 We have two teenage daughters. Even though my wife (yes I said wife....NOT spouse)and I interviewed over 10 care providers before we hired one. Our kids never went into mass institutionalized day care, they were raised in our home by us, and a private daycare professional who had the same belief system as us concerning children. End result...two teenagers who still respect us, respect each other, respect their peers, will hold doors open for their elders as well as other people, and above all, are not afraid to use please and thank you. If this is the result of private home care for children, I cannot see the downside.

16 Oddie441: Well said. Private home care, as you and your wife provided for your daughters, is far preferable to the universal, publicly funded, daycare advocated by the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc. I have provided home care in my own house, when my two daughters were very small, and shared the same values as the parents whose children I cared for. But this is not the kind of daycare supported by the universal daycare crowd. They want children out of their homes, basically in indoctrination centres, with mom having "a real job," so that the government can collect taxes from her salary. A stay-at-home mom, otherwise, has no salary for the government to tax. All the less revenue to go into the Liberal's pockets--at least, that's what their thinking was, and probably still is.

17 Methinks the CPC is creating alot of this issue by refusing to give the media soundbytes every day to fill up thier time... in the absesce of real news they're just reporting crap.

18 Its taken me six months, but I can finally do it. I can consume $100 worth of beer and popcorn! Seriously now... I saw that bit or one like it perhaps on Global. Pure tripe that 80% of children don't have access to daycare... They certainly aren't being handcuffed to a bedpost while mom and dad go to work. Its more likely is that the parents of 80% of the children out there CHOSE one of the many other options available... We do not need a universal daycare system.

19 Daycares don't generate the tax revenue that they cost Quebec lost 60% but if you want violent uncordinated children with crabby depressed parents day cares are a good thing. Details from CD Howe. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Quebec programs impact on families,... It also generates more tax revenue; as a rough calculation we estimate new federal and provincial taxes offset about 40 percent of the cost of the program. [ie it loses 60%] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Several measures we looked at suggest that children were worse off in the years following the introduction of the universal childcare program. We studied a wide range of measures of child well-being, from anxiety and hyperactivity to social and motor skills. For almost every measure, we find that the increased use of childcare was associated with a decrease in their well-being relative to other children. For example, reported fighting and other measures of aggressive behaviour increased substantially. Our results are consistent with evidence from the National Institute of Child Health and Development Early Childcare Research Network (2003), showing that the amount of time through the first 4.5 years of life that a child spends away from his or her mother is a predictor of assertiveness, disobedience, and aggression. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Furthermore, we find that several important measures of well-being show parents to be worse off. The survey data showed that mothers of the children in daycare were more depressed, as indicated by the significant rise in their depression scores relative to the average. The quality of their parenting practices declined, as measured by responses to questions on consistency, hostile or ineffective parenting, and "aversive interactions.” They also reported a significant deterioration in the quality of their relationship with their partners, as measured by mothers’ reports of their satisfaction with their spousal relationship on a scale from one to 11. We report a selection of these results in Table 1. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_25_english.pdf

1 Careful, Steve... this way be dragons...

2 Well, women will always be victims in Canada as long as the SOW's tell us we are! If the SOW's are needed so much in our society, people will donate to their charity. I do not hear the SOW's yelling about how women in Afghanistan were being treated by the Taliban! How can the SOW's miss the beheading of teachers that dare to teach females to read? Where is the big protest about that?? NO, they protest about a liberal national daycare program that totally ignores stay at home Mom's, because, well, because, stay of home Mom's are not what this organization wants female to be, not ever! The funds they use to protest are taxpayers funds, better spent on the disabled/homeless, but they are so used to their gravy train, they can't get off it, they might have to get a REAL job! How much does the head of SOW's get paid??? Of the 23 million they get, how much goes to salaries of the 130 workers? How much goes to the really needy?

3 Excellent post! Data....sweet, glorious data!

4 Hunter - very valid questions - most of which you will never get an answer to. Federally funded organizations giving out data on salaries and total given to worthwhile causes - well, that just isn't "Canadian"! I for one would love to see all funding suspended until a full audit and accounting of all monies is done by the Auditor General.

5 Monica Lysack of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, a recipient of funding from Status of Women Canada, calls the campaign to eliminate the agency "distasteful." The only reason she finds this "distasteful" is that she will be losing a government funded job.

6 We must also be careful here because none of these tables correct for a gap between education in males versus females. In Canada, females are MORE educated than males. Comparing females here to females elsewhere results in a disjoint between reality and theory. Also, these tables use the gross earnings, uncorrected in any way, to measure income. This has repeatedly been shown to be an inaccurate way of looking at income. Furthermore, no table shows the gap between social services available to females and those available to males. In Canada there are FAR FAR FAR more services available to females than to males. Even males in desperate need are thrown to the wolves in favor of females who have very minor needs. Thus, all of this data is ... at best, garbage.

7 Steve, thanks for all this leg work in collecting data. The radical feminists have always been good at lustily crying "WOLF!" when there's absolutely no wolf in sight. Their whole modus operandi is to tell the BIG LIE: that the majority of women are abused, raped, chattel (if married), and that universal government-funded daycare is what will benefit most Canadian families, which is hogwash. The problem is, if you tell the BIG LIE often enough, with government funds to back you up for networking, conferences, and salaries for SOW positions, with compliant allies (some might call them useful idiots) in the MSM, you find enough takers in the gullible and uninformed Canadian public to legitimize (sic) your agenda. All you have to do is take a look at cold, hard, facts (data: tip o' the hat to Steve and to REAL Women who do a lot of this leg work for Canadians, on their own dime) to realize that the SOW are living in La-La-Land, tailored to their particular tilted view of the world. Up to now, they've been living the life of Riley (a girl's name now, so it's OK to use it in this context: Do you believe I'm even having to THINK this way???). Just watch. Because this is the way they operate: Now that they are being challenged, they will begin a nasty, hysterical, ranting, ad hominem attack on anyone/group who has DARED to question the Queens of Downtrodden Women (even though it's clear that Canadian women are far from that compared to women in the rest of the world). Their campaign, paid for, of course, by OUR money, will be totally predictable. Nothing they say will be based on facts, merely on feelings and the premise will be what nasty people we are for questioning their humanitarian aid for women who so badly need help in our society. Because they've got the money and lots of other resources like offices, phone plans paid for by taxpayers, support staff, computers, faxes, the ear of the media, etc., etc., ad nauseum, we're looking at a David and Goliath thing here, but the good news is, the affluent era is coming to an end and I think that a lot of Canadians have had it with the parasites eating the apple from the inside. There is no need for SOW. Too many of its programs are redundant because they're being provided at a municipal or provincial level. Let's keep the heat on. SOW HAS to GO: NOW!

8 Steve - keep up the fight - these groups are fighting to keep their place at the trough and as a women - it p*sses me off that they in any way say they "speak" for me. I am definitely with you and if you post addresses or other contacts, I will be happy to write letters expressing my disgust at these "trough feeders"

9 I just googled Audra Willams blog - since she is so vocal at encouraging people to write their MP's, and found some interesting stuff. No wonder she want's people to write their MP!! "Audra Williams owns and operates a feminist PR business, Lefty Lucy Communications, from her home in Halifax. Her other day job is keeping the peace on ..." and Opinionated Lesbian : The rabble at babble Just a couple of sites that appeared. Um - Audra - you DO NOT speak for me.

10 Monica Lysack says it's distasteful for women to have opinions other than hers? When women so intellectually challenged that we shared one brain and one opinion? Mrs. Lysack and women like her don't speak for me!

11 Way to deflate the rabid rhetoric, Angry! People can dismiss the data as garbage (all economic data has its flaws) but at least it is coming from different sources. If different agencies come to the same conclusion, there must be at least a grain of truth to the trend they all convey. It's high time we call the special interest groups on their nebulous assertions and your post was a great first step in that direction...

12 Steve, What did you research turn up in regard to political empowerment in Canada for women, and the salary gap for women doing identical jobs to men? I think as long as empowerment is less than 50%, and wages equal, we do have a gender gap, even if we're seventh best. We should be the best, we're Canadian ;-)

13 Canada has a long tradition of being less than the best and being immensely proud of our humility. In any case, Lysack's comments were broad and not focused on salary, so I looked for similarly broad characterizations of the status of women. I'm not sure what you mean by 50% empowerment? Quotas for female MPs? What if 60% of the 50% turn out to be REAL Women types on the benches of the CPC? Do they count, or do we only count women sitting with the NDP and the Liberal Party who have all the right female opinions? Just counting the number of X-chromosones seems like a trivial way of ensuring a certain percentage of empowerment. Salaries are set by the free market. I don't know why the government should be involved. An employer can offer better wages to attract higher quality candidates. I don't know what "identical jobs" means. Within the same company, salaries are generally set by your job classification and seniority. Where you live in the country affects salary too. Different companies will have different levels of compensation and different ways of categorizing people. Gathering statistics across an industry covering a multitude of employers in different regions and then making statements on "inequities" is fraught with statistical pitfalls. In any case, pay equity is not a priority for the Status of Women: SWC focuses its work in three areas: improving women's economic autonomy and well-being, eliminating systemic violence against women and children, and advancing women's human rights. Economic autonomy might mean pay equity, but that's a stretch. It can mean a lot of things, but primarily it means being paid a living wage, not necessarily the same wage. So part of one third of their focus might be on pay equity, but the real focus is in violence (because the law is not enough) and the ill-defined term "women's rights". Pay equity is not even called out specifically, so if they aren't worried about it, I'm not worried about it.

14 Hi whiteotter, I've just noticed that the correct name of the agency is Status of Women Canada and the proper acronym is SWC. I'm retrofitting a correction into my posts. I never noticed the SOW thing, and certainly didn't intend to make that comparison. Just not my style.

15 Why couldn't the SOW be set up for a review? The SOW's mandate is not something that ought to be scrapped in Canada as of yet, and a privileged group of liberal feminists (of which I am a member!) calling for its demise because they personally do not benefit from its service charter seems wrong to me. A retooling, a review, an updated policy and some reallocation of funding, sure... but vitriolic commenters everywhere, don't use this one brouhaha in the blogosphere to further entrench either/or beliefs. The SOW does not speak for all women, nor does REAL Women. I detest seeing complex matters being broken down by simplistic thinking and solutions.

16 Steve, may I respond to Saskboy please? Saskboy, I see where you are coming from, but we cannot eradicate all inequities just by throwing money at them. We throw money at homeless and we create an industry around homelessness. I believe many supporters of the Status of Women Canada don’t want to see their make-work industry abolished. You talk of ‘political empowerment’. Women are allowed to vote, are they not? Women are allowed to run for office, are they not? Women are allowed to contribute to the political process, are they not? So what are you saying? Are you saying that women should be parachuted into parliament to increase their numbers, or that in some other way we should circumvent the democratic process? Should a woman’s vote be somehow weighed differently? The point is this, if women in Canada felt oppressed (by men), they would get more women on the ballot and elect more women. But perhaps other matters, not along gender lines, are more important to them? Next you talk about equal wages. This is a tough one. I don’t see it. I simply don’t see a systematic process that oppresses women in this way. I think Police and Teachers and MPs and Tim Horton’s workers and Bus Drivers and whatever else, would get paid the same for the same job regardless of gender. Here’s where my post gets a bit sensitive… Possible factors of some inequity may include the following around childbearing and childcare: 1. Women can get less work experience over their life due to the time they take on maternity leave. The interruption to their career can be quite severe. Its not fair, but there it is. Keep in mind that only the mother can take the full year off. 2. If a small business owner is faced with the choice of hiring someone who can get pregnant (and need to be replaced on a contract basis during her maternity leave) and someone who cannot get pregnant, perhaps that could factor into the remuneration offered. And if the same money had to be offered, perhaps the woman would not work again unless she only wanted to work in female-dominated workplaces. That would definitely be counter-productive wouldn’t it? I know its distasteful, but there it is… In this example, neither the Status of Women nor anyone else has the power to enact change. So, perhaps the Status of Women Canada’s job is done. Perhaps its no longer relevant.

17 Hynter, 130 workers is about 13 million, where does the other 10 million go to ???

18 Katherine, What you propose "a review.....etc." is exactly what SOW does now, sitting around in gaggles pontificating, at my expense. Ah, idea flash, slogan for a placard: COW SOW NOW ... brill, just brill.

19 Kathryn, you say, "The SOW does not speak for all women, nor does REAL Women. I detest seeing complex matters being broken down by simplistic thinking and solutions." I'm in total agreement that the SOW and REAL Women don't speak for all women, though I'd bet, if both groups were left to fund themselves (and REAL has paid its own way for almost 25 years) that REAL Women would be around in a year but that the SOW would be defunct. The main difference between the two groups--and the main problem many of us have with the SOW--is that we, the taxpayer, fully fund the SOW agenda, which is very one-sided. There is next to no accountability from a group that spends $25,000,000 EACH YEAR of the Canadian public's money and respresents only one very small part of the "woman spectrum" in Canada. You may not realize that radical feminists are quite a small minority in Canada because they make such a big noise--in the MSM, in academia, and in the judiciary. Part of the problem other women have being heard is that many of us haven't got the time or financial resources to be lobbying all the time, the way the feminists do. AND, nine times out of ten, they have taxpayers' money which funds their organizations to support their lobbying efforts. It's a very inequitable set-up, and is particularly ironic given that the SOW insists that it represents "equality for women." I don't see equality. I see a very privileged, entitled group of well-educated middle class women feathering their own nests at the expense of the rest of us.

20 Let me ask you guys a question: What would you say about the SOW's "work" against abuses of women? Would you say that we need a different organization that focuses on fighting the abuses? Or that the SOW organization had done enough? Because right now, we're only talking about the economic equality of women.

21 Why would an agency for women call themselves anything that has an acronym of SOW? Isn't that reason enough? Nevermind the fact that a 130 person organization would pull salaries of about $10 Million. Add in another $5 Million in rent, equipment, and administration and you don't have a whole lot left for the women who need it. (Except maybe the make work employees of the agency themselves) Boot em out and tell them to get real jobs.

22 If SOW was serious about what it says is its mandate: "SWC focuses its work in three areas: improving women's economic autonomy and well-being, eliminating systemic violence against women and children, and advancing women's human rights." then their NUMBER ONE PRIORITY would be encouraging marriage, encouraging couples to stay together, and supporting two-parent families. The fact that not only do they NOT support these initiatives but encourage family break ups (they were great supporters of 'no-fault' divorce, which actually means 'no responsibility/no accountability' divorce) is a glaring indictment of their seriousness to improve the lot of women and children. One of the main reasons women and children live in poverty is marriage breakdown; single mother/fatherless homes pretty much ensure that children will live in poverty and that life will be really tough for the single mom. I grew up in a single parent home, so I know. All SOW and other radical feminist groups do when they run anti-poverty programs is put a bandaid on a gaping wound. Surgery is needed, in the form of encouragement of and support for stable marriages and intact two-parent families. Why? Because intact, stable families also ensure against domestic violence, as a very large percentage of abused children are not abused by their own father, but by stepfathers and boyfriends. What's it going to take for women and children to get the genuine support they need, not some radical feminist Utopian bandaid that only prolongs the problems? Maybe a change in government?

23 Gargoyle, "Are you saying that women should be parachuted into parliament to increase their numbers, or that in some other way we should circumvent the democratic process?" I sympathize with the problem that parachuting advocates into power creates. I'm somewhat in favour of eliminating it as well, but for some reason either fewer women in Canada vote for women [or run at the party level], or Canadian women feel comfortable on average with men representing them. Or perhaps more Canadian men feel uncomfortable with women representing them in Parliament. In any case, democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people not their gender, but it's hard to imagine hundreds of men in suits dealing with womens' issues as fairly as an equal number of women and men in suits dealing with womens' issues.

24 One of the main reasons women and children live in poverty is marriage breakdown; single mother/fatherless homes pretty much ensure that children will live in poverty and that life will be really tough for the single mom. More specifically, BATB, the reason they live in poverty is because the social welfare system does not provide the support that newly divorced, single-parent families need to become economically self-sustaining. These supports include, but are not limited to, affordable housing; affordable childcare; occupational training programs; etc. Encouraging stable families is great, but divorces and single-parenthood (never married) are not going away. Supports need to be in place for these families too. ...intact, stable families also ensure against domestic violence, as a very large percentage of abused children are not abused by their own father, but by stepfathers and boyfriends. This is especially true for sexual abuse incidents, but not so for physical violence. Also, your point ignores abuse against women. True, some data suggests that domestic violence is initiated with about equal frequency by men and women, but women are far more likely to be on the losing end of these fights. Regardless of instigator, where there is violence in the home, divorce is often in the best interest of the child(ren) involved. More general, what precisely do you mean when you say that the government should encourage and support "stable marriages and intact two-parent families." What kinds of programs or initiatives are you envisioning?

25 SaskBoy, What’s your point? Perhaps fewer women run because fewer women are interested in running. Perhaps its not an issue, to most women, that they be represented by a woman at the Federal level. As a man, I couldn’t care less if my representative at whatever level of government is male or female. I AM uncomfortable that my MP happens to be a Liberal. Thankfully, my MPP is Elizabeth Witmer. Its clear to me that gender is not really an issue in my riding one way or the other. What is interesting is that Karen Redman, the Liberal MP in the neighbouring riding of Kitchener Centre, was one of those female candidates hand-picked by Jean Chretien in 1997 so he could say that 25% of all Liberal candidates were female. So, Liberals in her riding had the right to choose their candidate usurped to make political hay. But as Liberals do, they accepted it. They bought what they were told to. Of course Karen Redman won, not because she was a woman, or in spite of it for that matter. She won because she was Liberal and was handed the candidacy and ran against a fractured (decimated?) Right. This goes to the root of why ‘affirmative action’ is a bad idea. I question her legitimacy as a candidate in 1997 and her candidacies since then have had the incumbent advantage. Jean Chretien circumvented the democratic process but putting someone in who may or may not have been selected by local members of the party. Who cares if she was qualified? Her whole political career was tainted accepting her hand-out. If she knew she was capable, she should have said ‘no thanks, I’d like to win the candidacy fair and square’. As a Conservative I would not accept being told who I was to support. Perhaps that’s because I am too used to thinking for myself and using my principles, not party doctrine, to guide me. http://gargoylerants.blogspot.com/

26 Gargoyle writes: I believe many supporters of the Status of Women Canada donÂ’t want to see their make-work industry abolished. Many of the SWC grant recipients are front-line social service agencies providing direct support for disadvantaged women (e.g., victims of domestic violence; recent immigrant women seeking language skills and job training, etc.). The need is real; the services they render are not "make-work." Are you saying that women should be parachuted into parliament to increase their numbers, or that in some other way we should circumvent the democratic process? I noted in an earlier post that Canada lags in terms of % of female parlimentarians, compared to many other nations. This doesn't mean I support parachuting in women politicians. However, it does mean that one needs to ask why women are underrepresented in politics. To say that women can simply "get on the ballot" assumes that the democratic process is itself gender-neutral. In principle, it is; in practise, it is not. As one brief example, consider that candidacy support is often reliant on endorsements from other politicians (mostly men), corporate leaders (mostly men), and influential community members with deep pockets (mostly men). Nevertheless, women are making in-roads in politics, as elsewhere. Still, a gender gap remains, which means more work still needs to be done. I think Police and Teachers and MPs and Tim HortonÂ’s workers and Bus Drivers and whatever else, would get paid the same for the same job regardless of gender. Police officers, teachers, and MPs are paid by the state, meaning their pay structures are gender-blind and determined by public service regulations. Of course, this is an example of the state intervening to compel gender equality. Similar situation for public transit drivers, except they're protected by unions (at least where I live) rather than the public service. The private business community, on the other hand, is where the gender & wage gaps are most evident. Tim Horton's front-line staff (mostly female) all earn the same hourly wage at the onset. However, Wendy's International (owners of Tim Horton's; side note: regardless of political leanings, all Canadians should be saddened now that Timmy's is US-owned) management staff and head office executives make salaries that may or may not differ by gender. I would hazard to guess that, if they're at all like any other private corporations, that they do indeed vary by gender, not least because the executive board is mostly male. Possible factors of some inequity may include the following around childbearing and childcare... Yes, these factors are unfair. No, it's not that case that nothing can be done about them. For starters, we could look to progressive nations like Sweden, which offer far more parental leave benefits. We can also enact new laws and/or enforce existing ones that increase these parental benefits, target gender discrimination in the workplace, etc. Is this within SWC's current mandate? Likely not. We could of course change the mandate. But if SWC is scrapped, another government unit will be needed in its place to develop these legislative changes. As I noted in an earlier comment, even the most progressive states have such agencies as part of their government bureaucracies.

27 Steve: Economic autonomy might mean pay equity, but that's a stretch. It can mean a lot of things, but primarily it means being paid a living wage, not necessarily the same wage. So part of one third of their focus might be on pay equity, but the real focus is in violence (because the law is not enough) and the ill-defined term "women's rights". Pay equity is not even called out specifically, so if they aren't worried about it, I'm not worried about it. According to Article 23, Paragraph 2, of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. So, SWC's mandate to advance women's human rights presumably includes the issue of pay equity.

28 Put Deb Grey in charge of the SWC. If it's broken she'll fix it. If it's redundant she'll kill it. And God help Audra Williams, Gwendolyn Landolt or even Steven Harper if they get in her way.

29 Seems like everyone is still ignoring the critical issue here, which is that pay "equity" doesn't even have a meaningful objective definition. Citing statistical inequalities as some sort of "gender pay-scale gap" is nonsense, because women simply don't make the same choices as men. Thomas Sowell does a wonderful analysis of the "gap", and points out that men actually make less money than women with the same level of education and work experience who have never married. This was in the U.S. of course, but since Canada is consistently rated above the U.S. in terms of "equity", I'd have to assume it's the same here. Even if we ignore that - when feminists look at the "gap", they only look at broad statistical trends, ignoring the most important details, such as: professions of choice, flexibility and options (i.e. vacation times, stock options, work hours), and work experience (if a woman takes 2 years of maternity leave, she has 2 fewer years of experience than a man of the same age). Statistical equalities can be found between many arbitrary groups in Canada - such as Italians and Greeks, or Christians and Jews - but one can't infer any meaningful conclusion from that data, nor does one attempt to. Equal opportunity does not, by definition, lead to equal results. In fact, in the mathematical domain, perfect equity is statistically almost impossible - unless enforced artificially. Notice how the nations with the best "equity" also have the most stagnant economies? The UN's "Human Rights" charter (and how can anybody listen to the UN about human rights?) is written in purposefully vague language used commonly by leftists. "Equal pay for equal work" sounds nice and good and fluffy and happy, but none of the words in that phrase actually have any concrete meaning! How do we define "equal"? How about "pay"? And "work"? Is a fry cook at Burger King technically doing "equal work" to a chef at a five-star hotel's banquet hall? Are bloggers doing "equal work" (if not more work) than a vast number of media analysts? And if I get paid $50k and get 6 weeks vacation, wouldn't some people consider that "equal to" or even "better than" someone who gets $60k but only 2 weeks vacation? There's simply no fair way to measure the quantity and quality of "work", other than (a) finding out the pay scale for a particular profession, based on education level and years of experience, and (b) seeing if a particular person's combined salary and benefit packages fall within that scale. This data is widely available, but unfortunately it can only be applied to individuals, not broad statistical groups. If groups like SWC were actually dealing with real women's issues, like - for example - trying to encourage them to go into technical fields of study at university, which is where most of the money is today, then I might give them a pass. But in fact it's mostly Conservative, professional women who engage in this particular activism; SWC almost solely advocates draconian equality laws and government handouts, and so I think they've outlived their usefulness. One last point: if women are truly paid less than men for "equal" work, why don't businesses exclusively employ women? And why isn't the unemployment rate zero for women? You would think there would be massive demand for female labour that is equal in quality to - but cheaper than - male labour. It's just common sense.

30 Steve "Quotas for female MPs? What if 60% of the 50% turn out to be REAL Women types on the benches of the CPC?" Do you feel the Conservative Party of Canada has enough female representation in the House? I don't think any of the parties are doing a good enough job at either permitting or encouraging women to be active in politics. "Economic autonomy might mean pay equity, but that's a stretch. It can mean a lot of things, but primarily it means being paid a living wage, not necessarily the same wage." Also, clearly the mandate includes dealing with pay equity problems. Why would a woman's rights group settle for "living wage" instead of "equal wage" which by the way should be a living wage too.

31 My last assignment in the army I walked in on a secretary laughing while reading an article in the Stars & Stripes. It was comparing traditional male jobs versus traditional female jobs and saying they should get the same pay. The jobs weren't even close. The only one I remember was one she pointed out: "Look at this, a secretary should be paid the same as a truck driver. How can they compare those? If I wanted truck driver pay I'd become a truck driver, but I don't WANT to be a truck driver so I get secretary pay".

32 - I think that SOW should be changed to "Status of Valid Gender Complaints" SVGC. Adding the valid male complaints and removing the frivolous female ones would be worth the money. (Solid work on removing misandry from Canadian society has immense potential benefit for all Canadians. So does solid work on male victims of Family Violence.) - I object to the way Family Violence funding is spent because the EXTREME and VIOLENT bigotry against male victims causes irreparable harm to men and children. We could with ease knock 10% of our child abuse rate by simply telling the women's shelters to take the male victims: Most of the male victims are of the extreme form (L2 & L3) and in desperate need. Most of the female victims getting help are of the L1 form and not in as much need as the smaller number of males. Shelters which accept both males and females typically run about 3/4 female: They also have much better outcomes for both sexes.

33 Aaron G You said it. A What’s your point? Do you believe that women are systematically oppressed in Canada? Look at it from a ‘supply and demand’ perspective. If it was an edge to capitalize on the ‘simmering rage’ from political oppression by fielding more female candidates, all parties would be doing it. Perhaps the number of women running is proportional to the level of interest in running. I don’t look at the proportion of male nurses and assume that men are being systematically oppressed. I believe that they are represented ‘equal’ to their interest in the profession. And, I don’t believe that I am in a minority of men who simply don’t care if I am represented politically by a man or a woman.

34 As a woman l thank God everyday for being born in a Western country where women are given respect and equal rights. If women in Western societies realize that by fate they could have been born in a 3rd world hell hole like Africa, the Middle East, or Mexico where women are treated like property they would realize how lucky they have it here. I couldn't care less what NOW or SOW says about how women are treated in Western society. They're full of crap and they should be grateful to have the rights that they have. Can you imaging squaking women pushing this crap in a Muslim country? I can't either.

35 Jen, Amen to the points you've made. Send every member of SOW to a third world country for a year and then see if they're still complaining and whining that "When you look at women in Canada and their human rights compared to international standards, we have a long way to go" (Monica Lysack, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada). There was a great answer to this nonsense from a posting at sda at 12:16 p.m. yesterday (August 25): BEGIN QUOTE +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Let me address that "international standards" crap for a minute. I just spent three and a half weeks at an orphanage in Kenya. They have 867 kids, and they do such an amazing job. All are former street kids, foraging through dumpsters in the slums, or turning to prostitution out of desperation or coercion. Now they have a home. What surprised me when I went over there was that most of these kids are not actually AIDS orphans (there certainly are some, but not the majority). They are victims of poverty, abuse, neglect, an inferior medical system (mothers died in childbirth for instance), and other stuff. What Africa needs, perhaps even more than AIDS dollars, is infrastructure and alleviation of poverty. So when people talk about how Canada is down by international standards, they are talking total garbage. Most women in Africa have nothing. They aren't worried about female rights, or even AIDS, as much as they are worried about where the next meal is coming from. In Canada, we don't worry about that. Feminists who claim to speak for Canadian women are insanely presumptuous. But to speak for third world women, saying that their main concern is lesbian rights and access to abortion, are even worse. END QUOTE++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This comment gets to the heart of the matter, as it is unhelpful for Canada to be compared to the hugely overtaxed Nordic nations in this regard. What the Nordic nations do get right, however--and listen up, SOW, as you like the "progressive" Scandinavians--is that moms of stay-at-home kids receive a monthly allowances of $1200/child, in recognition that home care for children from birth to five or six is healthier for everyone: kids, parents, and society. Seeing as feminists have brought the Nordic nations into this debate, would the SOW advocate for more governmental support for women to stay home to care for their own child(ren)? If there was more societal and governmental encouragement for mothers to stay home to care for their kids, it would go a long way to encouraging stable, intact families. This kind of support would lessen the enormous stress which now exists in two-income families, where mom and dad are juggling two careers/jobs, plus daycare for their kids, and the myriad other domestic tasks that need to be done. It's clear that since families have come to rely on two incomes, separation and divorce rates in Canada have skyrocketed. Very hard on the kids. Very hard on everyone.

36 'Been Around the Block: Send every member of SOW to a third world country for a year and then see if they're still complaining and whining that "When you look at women in Canada and their human rights compared to international standards, we have a long way to go"...This comment gets to the heart of the matter, as it is unhelpful for Canada to be compared to the hugely overtaxed Nordic nations in this regard. Are you really saying that it's more helpful to compare Canada to Kenya than to Scandinavia? I can't think of a single national indicator of anything--economic, social, demographic, political, etc.--where Canada validly holds itself up against a developing nation. Canada's international comparisons are almost always vis a vis other developed nations, like those in the OECD. It is entirely helpful--necessary even--for Canada to compare its social policies with Scandinavian countries, which are internationally recognized as innovative leaders in this regard. What the Nordic nations do get right, however...is that moms of stay-at-home kids receive a monthly allowances of $1200/child, in recognition that home care for children from birth to five or six is healthier for everyone... Actually, though Sweden does indeed offer parental and child benefits, 4 in 5 families with pre-school-aged children make use of the publicly funded childcare program, which offers enough space for 98% of the population. I'm not saying that universal, affordable childcare should be the only program available, but as Sweden and other progressive countries have shown, it is a key component of a comprehensive national childcare strategy. ...would the SOW [sic] advocate for more governmental support for women to stay home to care for their own child(ren)? As per my point immediately above, SWC, as well as most feminist groups, acknowledge existing government support (e.g., child benefits, etc.) for women (and men) who choose to stay at home to raise children. What feminists and childcare advocates are pushing for is balance--since the federal and provincial governments already earmark funds in existing child benefit programs, what may be needed now is investment in an affordable childcare network.

37 Unfortunately, A, it seems that you have chosen to misunderstand my comparisons between Canada and both African and Scandinavian countries. My obvious, I would have thought, point was that it is a gross exaggeration for Canadian women to whine and complain about equality when, in fact, Canadian women are well within the top of the international heap when it comes to benefits, financial well-being, and human rights. Is it any wonder that a large number of Canadians, many, many women included, are fed up with the whinging and whining--the positive feedback screeching--of our "official" Status of Women keeners, who are doing very well off their keeping the downtrodden nature of Canadian women (sic) in the forefront of their--and Canadians'-- concerns? My point about Scandinavian countries, which I may not have made clear, is that they have recently changed their minds about universal, government-funded daycare. They have recognized, as many women's groups in Canada have (such as Kids First and REAL Women) that non-parental care for children from birth to five or six is no substitute for a parent staying home to care for their own child(ren). So, I am glad that you recognize that Scandinavian countries are "internationally recognized as innovative leaders in this regard." I am waiting for feminist groups like the NAC and SCW to admit that the rush to universal daycare, fully funded by the government, is not the answer to child care in Canada. As the group REAL Women has always maintained, there should be the best possible daycare afforded to mothers who must work outside the home but they maintain, along with the Scandinavians, that it is in the best interests of children, families, and society for a parent (mother or father) to care for their own child(ren). This idea has been fought tooth and nail by feminist, government funded women's groups since the early '80s. NAC and SCW have actively blocked groups who have advocated parental homecare for their children by denying them funding through "women's equality programs" (sic). You say, "SWC, as well as most feminist groups, acknowledge existing government support (e.g., child benefits, etc.) for women (and men) who choose to stay at home to raise children." Well, A, big deal. "Existing government support" (up until the CPC stepped up to the "balanced" child care plate to give ALL Canadian families $100/month/child six and under) had been just about zilch for one-income families with a parent home to care for their child(ren). I know, because I cared for my stay-at-home kids in the '80s and '90s. The Liberals actually punished stay-at-home caregivers through the inequitable tax system, which gave tax write-offs to women working outside the home which they denied to women working in the home. Where were the NAC and SCW when this was going on? Fighting women's groups who were trying to level the playing field for all Canadian women. Where were the NAC and SCW when all of this was going on? Flicking the finger at women's groups that did not fall into lockstep with their view of "equality for women," and giving all of the so-called "equality" funds ONLY to groups that agreed with their agenda. Some equality. Some balance. Whatever "affordable childcare network" that might be forged to encourage balance in the care of our children and equity for ALL Canadian families, would have to include all types of families, not just the lopsided and unfair conglomeration of feminist groups that exists now and that has excluded families and women they have pronounced as "against equality."

38 What’s your point? Do you believe that women are systematically oppressed in Canada? No, "oppressed" is stating the case too strongly. However, it's clear from the data that women continue to face certain economic and social discriminations and inequalities in a way that men simply do not. These inequalities persist even when confounding variables (e.g., type of occupation compared, years of schooling/work/experience; marriage/parental status; etc.) are accounted for; that is, they exist in part because of gender biases. Look at it from a ‘supply and demand’ perspective. If it was an edge to capitalize on the ‘simmering rage’ from political oppression by fielding more female candidates, all parties would be doing it. Perhaps the number of women running is proportional to the level of interest in running. Or perhaps gender (in)equality does not operate on free market principles. Free market theories assume an approximately level playing field ("equal opportunity"), and become perverted when too much power/wealth is concentrated among a few holders. The modern feminist struggle for equality is about 150 years old; the social, economic, cultural, and political dominance of men over women is more than two millennia old. Things have improved markedly in the last century and a half, but many forms of gender inequality still exist. It's a similar developmental path as the struggle against racism. The "big" issues are resolved--women have the vote, slavery is abolished--but many "smaller" issues remain to be resolved. I don’t look at the proportion of male nurses and assume that men are being systematically oppressed. I believe that they are represented ‘equal’ to their interest in the profession. Actually, studies have described the discrimination and discomfort often felt by male nurses, particularly in nursing school and early clinical practise, because their career choice is "unmasculine" and their peers are in a (rare) position of dominance (usually by sheer numbers). Same with male elementary school teachers. Some drop out of these professions for this reason; others are interested but never even pursue them because of gendered stereotypes against doing so. This does not indicate "lack of interest"; when somebody feels external pressure against doing something because of their gender/sex, it is almost invariably a form of (perhaps subtle, but nevertheless coercive) gender discrimination. [Interestingly, males are promoted to powerful nursing and teaching "management" positions--hospital administrators, principals, etc.--faster than women and in greater proportion than than their numbers in their respective professions would indicate.]

39 A. wrote: "Things have improved markedly in the last century and a half [for women], but many forms of gender inequality still exist." No kidding? I hate to burst any bubble A. may be inhabiting, but until we have a perfect Sci-fi, Utopian being, combining equally, of course, of male and female attributes, we are always going to have "gender inequality." That's life. "Salada," as they say in Central America. Does A. think that men have an easier life than women? Does A. think that it's only women who suffer and experience "gender inequality"? (A pox on that damn fiction.) If you're a grown up and you observe grown up men and women, you will discover pretty quickly that both men and women equally experience hardships/gender inequalities: They may be different inequalities but they're inequalities just the same. If women and men work as a team they can offset some/most of these hardships. Example: It's true that when my children were infants, I had to get up in the middle of the night to feed them, because I was nursing them, and due to gender inequality, my husband didn't have mammary glands and therefore was deprived of this wonderful experience. But did he complain that he couldn't nurse our daughters? No, he didn't. Did I complain that it was I who had to have my sleep interruped in order to feed our children? No, I didn't. I occasionally asked my husband to rock our daughters when I'd fed them and couldn't keep my eyes open a second longer. He always complied and while I slept, he "held the fort" and settled the irritable baby. (I'd say that if your husband/partner won't do this, it's not due to "gender inequality," but to your having made a bad choice in a husband/partner. Why blame gender inequality?) We worked together to overcome these hardships and our respective "gender inequalities"--and still do. This feminist-initiated gender war is becoming tiresome in the extreme; it's destructive, it doesn't move anyone forward, and, besides, it's a fiction which is perpetrated and played upon in order for a very narrow and bigoted, anti-male segment of the female population to ensure that they get attention and funds to foist their unhealthy, vindictive, and retrograde world view on the rest of us. Enough, already. If these angry anti-male women want to carry on their charade, they can at least do it on their own dime. The public is running out of dollars and patience. And we've got far better things to do than be at war with our husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons.

40 The whole "Women's" Program is a fraud--and a front for radical feminists. Long ago, as a "disloyal member of the opposition", I used to be very involved in challenging the feminists. Like the gays today, they were very canny at promoting themselves as legitimate victims. The male oppressors (sic!) of women in our governments--even Conservative ones--went so against type and were so gentlemanly, they caved entirely and gave these harridans--for that's what most of them are--just about everything they asked for, or at least $ millions upon millions to lobby for it. A total crock. Canadians should look at what the $$ feminists extort from the Canadian taxpayer do. It's generally anything that's anti-men and anti-family, and they promote irresponsible behaviour for women: Have sex like men and then insist that the rest of society support you and your definitely deprived and often seriously dysfunctional children. This is a truth one's not allowed to speak in Canada. Have a good look at children and poverty, poor educational achievement, poor self-esteem, crime, etc. From where does the largest group come? This is a banned question. Many fewer feminists and government $$ would reduce the number of children living with one, poor, stressed out mother. (There are certainly exceptions. Many single parents do a heroic and wonderful job: IÂ’m not talking about them.) Radical feminism has zilch to do with "equality". It actually fits my "adult toddler" thesis very well. Feminist Credo: Even when I'm grown up, I don't have to make responsible decisions. Because I'm a victim, I can make any decision I damn well please and "Daddy" aka, the government, will have to pay--and pay--and pay. So there! Real women--vs the toddler variety--don't think this way. We may be far from perfect, but we take responsibility for our decisions, and, if we wish to have children, we understand the very valuable and precious part the fathers of our children play in our and our children's lives. We realize that the best social program ever devised is the family. With all its problems, in general, the family's a darn sight warmer, more functional, and reliable than the government. That feminists hoodwink women into putting their trust in government for their and their children's well being is an utter travesty. (Ironic too: don't trust your own father or the father of your children, but trust a group of male bureaucrats in Ottawa. What a laugh! Well, it would be if it weren't such a blight on so many lives.) Because of their myopic and magical thinking and the lies they spread everywhere they go, feminists--nearly always represented at the government level and in universities by the most unhappy, fringe, often lesbian- family- and men- haters (think, Deb Frisch)--are a positive danger to women. (Men, children, and society at large too.) REAL Women deserves a medal for being on the feminists' case for decades, lobbying and taking on court cases, at their own expense, in favour of real women and their families. Although this group has always been the truth teller, it's been maligned and shunned by all the elites in this "tolerant, diversity loving" country for nearly three decades. And what has REAL Women done? Sat down and had a tantrum? Nope. Its non government funded members, led by the indomitable Gwen Landolt, lawyer, founder, wife, mother, and grandmother--this is a short list of her accomplishments--have got on with the job of trying to conform public policy to the real needs of women and their families. I'm delighted to see that some others are now publicly stepping up tothe plate in order to expose the lies and deviousness of the official feminists.

41 'Been Around the Block: My obvious, I would have thought, point was that it is a gross exaggeration for Canadian women to whine and complain about equality when, in fact, Canadian women are well within the top of the international heap when it comes to benefits, financial well-being, and human rights. This is akin to suggesting that, say, African Americans should no longer fight against racism because they're better off than their slave forefathers, or because their lot is better than impoverished drought-plagued Ethiopians. Inequality is inequality -- you're thanking for what you've got, but you don't stop seeking true equality just because you're "close enough." Many feminists are working on improving gender equality in terms of health and socioeconomic statuses in developing nations; others are focusing on problems closer to home. Both groups share the same philosophy. By the way, where do you think the "benefits, financial well-being, and human rights" you currently enjoy came from? They were demanded by generations of feminists before you who faced and rejected the same sort of status-quo, don't-rock-the-boat, these-"radicals"-don't-speak-for-me ideologies that you currently espouse. My point about Scandinavian countries, which I may not have made clear, is that they have recently changed their minds about universal, government-funded daycare. Ah, so you do support comparisons between Canada and Scandinavia, but only the select policies of the latter that you agree with. As for "recently changed their minds," can you cite a document or website that offers proof of this (something other than a personal blog or newspaper article floating an idea or criticism, but real evidence indicating an imminent shift in popular opinion and/or government policy)? Because according to this and this and this and this and this, the Nordic states still seems generally happy with the direction of their social welfare policies. ...due to gender inequality, my husband didn't have mammary glands... Uh, seriously? You think this is an actual gender inequality concern, that men's general inability to lactate is something that feminist groups are railing against? I'm not sure what strain(s) of feminism you've been exposed to, but you need to go out and speak with some mainstream groups. You'll find they're not "anti-male," and do not wish to initiate or perpetuate a "gender war." Indeed, mainstream feminists actively welcome men who support equality between the sexes. Many men--myself included--consider themselves feminists for this very reason. I occasionally asked my husband to rock our daughters when I'd fed them and couldn't keep my eyes open a second longer. He always complied and while I slept, he "held the fort" and settled the irritable baby. Sounds like your husband supports the idea of him performing his fair share of child-rearing duties. Kudos to him--that's an excellent approach to parenting. In fact, that's an approach to parenting that feminists have been trying to get fathers to adopt for at least the last half-century. Sounds like your husband is sympathetic to feminist ideas himself.

42 Under Canadian Law, men experience unequal property and child expropriation as well as paying for the upkeep of a former spouse for the rest of a man's life. What do those basics have to do with 'equity' ?

43 A. 'You think that a father helping out with his children is a "feminist idea"? Good G*d, man. Men have been helping out in the home for eons. What arrogance to call this sharing of domestic chores a "feminist idea." My husband is not a feminist, has never been a feminist, and never will be a feminist, and yet he has been extremely involved in the upbringing of our children, gladly rocked them to sleep in the middle of the night, changed their diapers, did homework with them, went to movies with them, etc., etc. and not because he had somehow been "feminist-ized." I am not a feminist, either, so it's not like I was "teaching" him how to be a better husband/father/male. Individuals and families other than those who call themselves feminists have been sharing domestic duties forever. This, in fact, is what marriage is all about, men and women, parents, working as a team, though for some nefarious reason, feminists pooh-pooh marriage. This seems to be a fact of which you are unaware, A, and has me thinking that youÂ’ve been brainwashed by the feminists. The only kind of equality I'm interested in for both men and women is equality of opportunity. I think, in Canada, we've pretty well reached that and I'm not willing to have the SOW continue to get millions of taxpayer's money to further their Utopian cause. All gender gaps will NEVER be filled, and I resent the endless torrent of my tax dollars, and of everyone else who doesn't agree with the SOW's agenda, being poured into this money-pit of a gap. Enough, already. Let my family keep more of its hard-earned money to put our children through university and to pay for the myriad other expenses of having a family rather than having feminists decide where and how to spend it. Their agenda is not my agenda. I should not have to pay for it. Period.

44 'Been Around the Block: 'You think that a father helping out with his children is a "feminist idea"? Good G*d, man Men have been helping out in the home for eons. Actually, a more equitable sharing of housework and parenting duties has been a major issue among feminists for decades. Prior to the modern feminist movement in the latter half of the 20th century, the typical view of the North American nuclear family included archetypes like Papa Breadwinner and Mama Housemaker. Leave It to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, etc. etc. Of course, the reality was far more complicated than these TV shows would suggest, but this rosy gendered division of labour was the dominant ideology up til that time. It was the feminist perspective that first pushed, starting in the late 1960s, for men to take up more responsibilities in the home, and for women to take up more responsibilities outside the home. Even today, wives still end up doing more domestic work than husbands, even when both hold F/T jobs outside the home. Consider this and this and this book. The only kind of equality I'm interested in for both men and women is equality of opportunity. I think, in Canada, we've pretty well reached that...Enough, already. Let my family keep more of its hard-earned money to put our children through university and to pay for the myriad other expenses of having a family rather than having feminists decide where and how to spend it. Their agenda is not my agenda. I should not have to pay for it. Let's get some focus here. The SWC gets, what, $20-$30 million in funding per year? According to disclosure statements from their website, many of their grants go to women's shelters and job training centers. So you're unwilling to have $1-$2 of your annual tax dollars go to women's shelters? I guess it's an issue of principle for you. Fair enough if the SWC agenda isn't your agenda. Perhaps you've had it lucky; likely you've put in a lot of hard work to raise your family. But many Canadian women haven't had the opportunities and breaks that you might have received. The SWC funds many practical, ground-level programs that work to improve the circumstances of these disadvantaged groups. Their "agenda" is so incredibly mainstream and benign and middle-of-the-road compared to more radical streams of feminist activism out there. I think you underestimate the need for these resources in Canadian communities, and overestimate the percentage of the population that informatively rejects SWC's mandate. You could, of course, prove me wrong by digging up some actual evidence indicating that SWC supports only these radical fringes to the exclusion of more mainstream groups. (FYI: Not funding REAL Women does not make SWC "radical"; in fact, REAL Women's agenda is a politically right as the agenda of truly radical feminists are politically left. The SWC, in my view, sits firmly in the middle.) By the way, what do you think of countries like Norway and Sweden and Iceland, all of which have a government department responsible specifically for gender equality issues?

45 A few responses to A.: Something that radical feminists (meaning women and men who want female supremacy not genuine equality, and who for some reason, never seem to have children) never bring into this conversation is that until very recently, it was essential for women to keep the home fires burning. Why? Until very recently, there was no central heating, there were no washing machines and dryers, there was no formula, there was no tinned or bottled baby food, there were no drip-dry clothes, there were no pre-packaged foods for either meals at home or kids' school lunches, there was very little effective birth control, and the list goes on an on. Who was going to take care of the children and all of the domestic chores if one couldn't afford a maid or manservant? Who was going to make money outside the home for the family to live on? The division of labour between men and woman made a lot of sense, but the radical feminists have insisted on framing it as “women’s oppression,” “male dominance,” and a “partriarchal plot” to make sure that women “stay in their place.” SOMEONE had to stay home. And that someone, given that women have breasts with which to feed their children for the first few years of life, were the logical parent to stay home. Far from "the patriarchy" DEMANDING that women stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, this was simply a biological necessity before the arrival of mod-cons. I would hazard a guess, as well, that apart from a small minority of women, most would have preferred to tend the hearth and kinder rather than go down the mine, deliver milk, cut down trees, spend the day in a factory, an abattoir, or in a ditch. With the arrival of labour-saving devices (which simply means that we now do ten times as much in a day as we used to--but that's a story for another day) women's staying home obviously became a topic for debate. As one witty observer put it about women and children: Mothers are geography, a place. They have breasts in order to feed their children and a shelf (hips) on which to carry them. Men don't have either, and, from broad observation, seem to have more difficulty than women in multitasking, a necessity when you're running a household. Men have other very positive attributes, but caring for kids, while talking on the phone arranging drives for the kids to after school events, with dirty clothes in the washing machine, a load about to be finished in the dryer to be folded, a pie in the oven and chicken marinating, salad stuff soaking, etc., etc. Women are particularly suited to domestic life--which ISN'T to say that they can't be and aren't very capable of life in the corporate world. It's just that if most homes, and I emphasize most homes, were left to fathers, I'm not sure there would be a happy outcome for anyone concerned: man, woman, or child. Which may be why, despite women's rush into the workplace since WWII and feminism's encouragement to women to be "financially" equal to men, only a small minority of families choose to have "Daddy" at home while mom becomes the main bread winner. Many of the programs that SCW runs are redundant. Municipal and federal governments already have programs for immigrant women and abused women and, in addition, many churches run programs, especially for children whose parents are going through a divorce. Canada does not need “special women's programs." If we do, then we'd better institute "men's programs" and "children's programs" but that would be ridiculous. Women should not be a "special interest group," and if they think they are, they should raise their own funds and not ask all Canadians to contribute to their cause. As for Iceland, Sweden, and Norway, who all "have a government department responsible specifically for gender equality issues," it's no wonder their taxes are so high—and BTW, so is their suicide rate; these government departments, up to now, at any rate, don’t seem to have improved their lifestyles, at least as far as a happiness quotient goes. "Gender equality" is a buzzword for a Utopian, sci-fi, all gaps and differences made up for, society, and I don't believe that such an entity will ever exist, nor do we need it to. Men, women, and children are meant to work together as a team, something that radical feminists and SCW seem not to understand. When you divide the world into "good" women who are victims and "bad" men who are oppressors, and use government funds to widen the already-existing divide between men and women (who are, after all, quite different from one another biologically and psychologically) by excluding men and women who wish to work together, not against one another, you create more problems rather than solving already existing ones. SCW has set up an antagonistic rivalry between feminists and women who see a very important role for themselves in their homes and communities and with men who they, almost universally, see as “the problem.” If people think that "gender equality" is important, the onus is on them to raise their own funds and persuade others of their agenda. REAL Women, whose motto is "Women's rights but not at the expense of others' rights," has had to raise their own money since 1983. They're still in existence, which means that they have a genuine constituency. Far from being a “politically right” group, as you and the feminists like to characterize them, their ideas are actually shared by more Canadians than the Status of Women agenda. Unfortunately, we’ll never be able to test my hypothesis, or yours, as long as the government is funding SCW to the tune of $23,000,000 a year of taxpayers' dollars. If the government stops funding this special interest group, it will be very interesting to see how long it lasts. I am simply asking for a level playing (paying?) field for all women’s groups. All women’s groups should have to put their own money where their mouths are, not my money. Let me choose which group I want to support. As it is now, with some of my taxes being given to SCW, I have no choice. Ironic, isn’t it? The very women who insist on choice give Canadians no choice.

46 Well, A, perhaps if we have crossed some line, from oppression and ‘slavery’ (don’t know where you got that) towards some Star Trekian gender-blind utopia then we no longer need a bunch of rabid man-hating whiners being funded by the government? Perhaps a more pragmatic organization should be put in place. Maybe they could start by addressing the misconception, re-enforced by divorce courts, that all women are somehow better parents. How about a group that (while encouraging women to take up trades and explore engineering, etc) also encouraged men to get into and stay in some of the occupations you talked about (elementary school teacher, nursing, etc)? I personally don’t think they are un-masculine. Tell me, do women think they are? And are these the same women who have been telling us (men) that we need to cook and clean, stuff the 21st century man does anyway? Certainly SWC doesn’t care enough about ‘gender equality’, whatever that is, to ever take up any initiative like that. On your point regarding the dis-proportionate promotion of men, I would ask you to consider that perhaps these men feel seeking out these promotions is the best way to stay in the business for which they are trained AND re-claim the masculinity that their female counterparts question. And perhaps it’s the best way to get the most money they can (another artificial measure of a man’s ability to pull his weight). I know that as a man I have NEVER (apart from the concept of ‘parental leave’) been encouraged to look at options that would reduce the amount of money I bring home in so I could contribute to my family in other ways. Its just assumed by many un-enlightened women, (read above description) that men are lazy, abusive, butt-scratching, channel-surfing, mouth-breathing slobs with time on their hands and no regard for their family.

47 Thank you, 'been around the block, your boundless pragmatism is a breath of fresh air.

48 De rien, Gargoyle. Avec plaisir. It's time for women who don't define themselves as feminists, who love their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons and who view family as a team effort, to KICK ASS. We've been bullied, misrepresented, and shunned by the "pro-choice" cabal for far too long. They and their anti-male, anti-women-who-don't-share-their-view-of-the-world agenda, definitely need to be challenged. Have mouth will travel at your service... ;-)

49 'Been Around the Block and Gargoyle: Can either of you please offer up some actual evidence supporting your claim that the SWC is comprised of and/or is sympathetic to "radical feminists"? This thread, after all, was about the importance of research and hard data. Something concrete, beyond the anecdotal word of REAL Women or bloggers like Steve and Big Blue Wave--like, for example, a list of grants being directed to "radical feminist" groups to the exclusion of more mainstream factions. Since this entire thread hinges on the existence of a link between SWC and "radical feminism" (which you seem to take as any view other than that promoted by REAL Women), you need to start citing some proof for your accusations. I've yet to see a single shred of this from anyone calling for the SWC's demise. I'll readily concede defeat if you can produce something--anything--legitimate and reasonable that supports your position. BATB, I agree with nothing in your last comment except that women have breasts and men do not. Your argument that women were once "needed" in the house is largely irrelevant given that the modern feminist movement emerged after the introduction of affordable modern domestic conveniences, after the widespread availability of contraceptives allowed women to take control of their reproductive destinies, and after North American women started working outside the home in large numbers. Modern feminism addresses gender inequalities extant in the present reality; who cares about the circumstances of an outmoded and no-longer-applicable past? And are you seriously using high suicide rates in an attempt to undermine the gender equality policies in Nordic countries, as if the former somehow directly or indirectly nullifies the personal and social gains afforded by the latter? Gargoyle: I agree with you that the SWC mandate could be revised and expanded to include more pragmatic considerations of "gender equality" rather than simply "women's rights." I believe that inequalities exist in many forms and have many victims. In keeping with this, I support the feminist movement insofar as they seek to correct socioeconomic inequalities that disadvantage women, but where these inequalities disadvantage men instead (e.g., as you point out, in matters of custody), I believe that men should also have a voice as loud as that enjoyed by feminist groups. Regarding the disproportionate promotion of men in the nursing and teaching fields, I'd ask you to consider in turn that your argument relies on the belief that (1) "management" positions confer "masculinity"; and (2) men are more successful at getting these positions not because of systemic gender discrimination, but because women are either genuinely less interested or less qualified for these positions than men. The fact that men may be compelled to seek out these promotions (due to belief #1) does not explain why they disproportionately get these jobs (unless you endorse belief #2).

50 By the way, 'Been Around the Block and Gargoyle, given that you both appear to praise one another's respective positions ("boundless pragmatism", "Have mouth will travel at your service..."), how do you two reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements: 1. From BATB: [F]rom broad observation, [men] seem to have more difficulty than women in multitasking, a necessity when you're running a household. Men have other very positive attributes, but...if most homes, and I emphasize most homes, were left to fathers, I'm not sure there would be a happy outcome for anyone concerned: man, woman, or child. and from Gargoyle: Maybe they could start by addressing the misconception, re-enforced by divorce courts, that all women are somehow better parents. 2. From BATB: Canada does not need “special women's programs." If we do, then we'd better institute "men's programs" and "children's programs" but that would be ridiculous. and from Gargoyle: Perhaps a more pragmatic organization should be put in place...How about a group that (while encouraging women to take up trades and explore engineering, etc) also encouraged men to get into and stay in some of the occupations you talked about (elementary school teacher, nursing, etc)? I think the primary thing you both agree on is that you both disagree with me.

51 I address your last two posts A. You ask for evidence. We all know that data can be massaged to say whatever the writer wants, especially if the collection of the data has any subjectivity at all to it. I remember reading about a study that said that some crazy percentage of women had been ‘raped’. It was 85% or something like that. It was shocking, until one read on and realized that the sponsors of the study defined rape as any kind of sexual assault or harassment. Everything from rape to being whistled at by a construction worker was called ‘rape’. So, as a student of science I don’t put a lot of stock in it if I don’t know HOW the data was collected and analyzed. But it doesn’t take data to tell me that women are not systematically oppressed in Canada. The point is that data is not legitimized just by being put in tabular form. As a student of science, I often deal in concepts. With that said, someone said earlier that REAL Women has received no money (from SWC) since 1983 or something like that. Can we not assume that their woman-is-not-the-victim view is not the reason? But REAL Women HAS raised enough to stay afloat. Perhaps that makes REAL Women a more legitimate organization rather than a feminist tool for social engineering. (Someone else wisely pointed that out earlier) Nice try A. But your attempt to sew discontent among enemy forces will fail. BATB makes the observation that women can multi-task like nobody’s business. That is a facet of a woman that I have always been in awe of. It alone does not make women better parents. And if that’s your argument then you MUST admit, parish the thought that…wait for it…men and women ARE different… I know. I’m going straight to hell for that blasphemy. But its only blasphemy because to the feminist ‘different’ implies a superior/inferior dynamic. I think a child loses if they lack role models of both genders. And I believe that fathers have just as much to contribute to the household and the raising of children and just as much responsibility. And, my disdain for those men who do not live up to their parental responsibilities, much less abuse, is boundless. I’ll concede that part of the misconception is ‘man’-made by the too-large number of men who are deadbeats. With that said, I know I’d do fine as a single dad of my three young children if it came to that. On your second point, I simply muse with the word ‘perhaps’. For example, ‘perhaps’ the social engineers that some feel the need to be so would have a hard time arguing against such a non-gender-specific organization. Personally, if SWC was abolished, I would not lobby for a new organization aimed at addressing ‘gender equality’. I think that ball is rolling and has momentum. So, I don’t really disagree with BATB here either. Now A, I admire your willingness to come to our side and debate with us. I respect your views and I thank you for helping to make this debate a lively one. I feel I should respond in kind. Look for my name on some Liberal blogs. I love being the underdog.

52 No, A., this is not true: "Modern feminism addresses gender inequalities extant in the present reality..." Modern feminists have made it their credo that women have been oppressed by men for centuries: that's always been their jumping-off point. A., it's pretty clear that you have no children: You've said that you don't and your attitude towards a number of the issues being discussed here makes it clear that you are childless. Here you say that a statement by me: Quote ***** [F]rom broad observation, [men] seem to have more difficulty than women in multitasking, a necessity when you're running a household. Men have other very positive attributes, but...if most homes, and I emphasize most homes, were left to fathers, I'm not sure there would be a happy outcome for anyone concerned: man, woman, or child. End Quote ***** refutes a statement by Gargoyle: Quote ***** Maybe they could start by addressing the misconception, re-enforced by divorce courts, that all women are somehow better parents. End quote ***** I was talking about the care and running of a household--most women's seemingly inherent talent of domesticity, the making of "a home"--when I made the point that women seemed more suited to multi-tasking than men. I wasn't IN ANY WAY commenting on men's PARENTING ABILIITIES. My husband, for instance, isn't particularly "domestic," and if we had had to rely on his housekeeping abilities, our home would have been pretty chaotic. On the other hand, he was and is a fantastic father, a reliable, loving, and very loved father to his two daughters. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Like Gargoyle, I appreciate your thoughts on this matter of SCW; you have spurred on a lengthy discussion with intelligent questions and perspectives. I just happen to disagree with them! As for proof. I did tell the story, I think, much earlier in this thread of REAL Women trying just to get an application for grant money back in the mid-'80s. SOW wouldn't send them one, telling REAL callers to the program, "Your group is not for equality for women." When REAL sent a request under a bogus letterhead (with a PO Box #,) "Lesbian Mothers of Canada," they received an application by return mail with a hand-written note which said, "Welcome to the World of Government Funding. If there is ANYTHING we can do to help you, please let us know." The whole fiasco was written up in an article by Danielle Crittendon in Saturday Night, which I am sure you can find somewhere on the Internet. If you want more evidence, Google REAL Women and read their Web site; better yet, get a subscription to their magazine "Reality," and you will read proof after proof, documented, of the feminist nature of SCW. The SCW is able to go to court, using LEAF (http://www.leaf.ca/), the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, to further feminist causes (check REAL Women's Web site for examples). REAL has never had access to LEAF, and always is forced to pay themselves if they are challenging a court case entered into by the SCW. You will not find "feminist" anywhere on the LEAF Web site, but their causes are feminist causes--and, A., I think you are being disingenuous when you ask for proof that the SCW is a radical feminist group. They're sure not for mom and apple pie, they're pro-abortion, they're only for universal, government-funded daycare and have been contemptuous of women who have made the choice to stay home to care for their own children, they don't like men very much, and a number of their "leaders" have been lesbians. Anything else you'd like to know?!

53 Gargoyle: You misunderstand. I wasn't asking for evidence that women are or are not being "systematically oppressed in Canada." I asked for evidence showing that the SWC supports a "radical feminist" agenda at the exclusion of more mainstream factions. This link is necessary, as it's the basis for your (and REAL Women's) entire case for abolishing the SWC. This needn't take the form of statistics--in fact, it likely won't. An internal document, a website, a third-party report--anything, really, that documents such a link. Also, being a student of science, you know that proving that SWC does not fund REAL Women is not the same thing as proving that SWC only funds "radical feminist" groups. Showing that A is not B doesn't prove that A is C.

54 BATB: As for proof. I did tell the story, I think, much earlier in this thread of REAL Women trying just to get an application for grant money back in the mid-'80s... Sorry, but a single anecdote recounted in an article published 18 years ago in a popular magazine falls rather short of my standards of rigorous evidence. Besides, are you implying that because SWC chose to support the Lesbian Mothers of Canada but not REAL Women, that in your book, simply being a lesbian is enough to make you a "radical feminist"? Before you answer, keep reading. I think you are being disingenuous when you ask for proof that the SCW is a radical feminist group. They're sure not for mom and apple pie, they're pro-abortion, they're only for universal, government-funded daycare and have been contemptuous of women who have made the choice to stay home to care for their own children, they don't like men very much, and a number of their "leaders" have been lesbians. A number of their 'leaders' have been lesbians? This last bit left me rather baffled. What does the sexual orientation of SWC members have to do with anything? So I reviewed again the literature available on the REAL Women website, its position papers, newsletter, etc., and I realized that, finally, we're getting to the heart of the matter. Contrary to its motto and rhetoric, REAL Women's not really about women's equality at all. Sure, it shares a few ideas in common with mainstream equality-seeking groups, like more family-friendly workplace policies (e.g., job-sharing, extended parental benefits, etc.). But mostly, it's agenda is standard social conservatism--pro-family, against same-sex marriage, against abortion/choice, against sex worker rights, etc. etc. In other words, it's not a women's equality group, it's a social conservative group with a female-only membership. Now, social conservatism is a lot of things, but promoting equality isn't one of its strengths. In fact, by seeking to restrict choice, to withhold rights, and to tell other people how to live their lives, groups like REAL Women more often than not stand in opposition to increasing equality in Canada. And as long as they (and you) insist on (mis)defining "radical feminism" as anything that violates their (and your) social conservative views, then any debate that follows is already doomed before it even starts.

55 A: Do I have “evidence showing that the SWC supports a "radical feminist" agenda at the exclusion of more mainstream factions”. Well no. Nor do I really know what REAL Women are all about, but it seems that they are not women-are-the-victim, man-hating whiners who readily deny that men and women are indeed different yet equal. And, it seems very likely that they don’t get support from SWC. I’ll leave it to others (you for example) to trace the money trail from SWC to REAL Women. Have fun with that. I, for one, am comfortable believing that RMC (Rabid Man-haters of Canada) if there were such a group, would get funding before REAL Women, or anyone in between. Just because I don’t hold myself to ‘journalistic integrity’ standards of research does not invalidate my opinion. I don’t have time to research and write a book on every topic I choose to discuss. My overall point in this thread is that women are not systematically oppressed in Canada any more than men are. As I said before, we have the ‘gender equality’ ball rolling with enough momentum. Radical feminism has done all it can, if it even did anything positive at all. And further funding will only deepen and widen gender gaps by telling women they are oppressed and telling men they are the oppressors.

56 Gargoyle: Do I have “evidence showing that the SWC supports a "radical feminist" agenda at the exclusion of more mainstream factions”. Well no...Just because I don’t hold myself to ‘journalistic integrity’ standards of research does not invalidate my opinion. No, you're of course entitled to hold whatever opinion you'd like. Nobody here is required to hold themselves to "'journalistic integrity' standards", though I suspect the level of political debate in this country would improve markedly if everybody strived to. Even as a personal matter, isn't it preferable to hold opinions that have a basis in reality and fact, rather than opinions supported only by speculation and ideology? My overall point in this thread is that women are not systematically oppressed in Canada any more than men are. And I agreed with you, though I also pointed out that an absence of "systematic oppression" does not necessarily imply the absence of ongoing gender inequalities. Hence the distinction between systematic discrimination and systemic discrimination. These latter inequalities are more subtle, but nevertheless real in their consequences. SWC, and the groups it funds, raise awareness of these biases and work towards their eradication. They attempt this important task using an annual budget of $23 million, or 0.01 per cent (that is, one-hundredth of one per cent) of the federal budget. Now A, I admire your willingness to come to our side and debate with us. I respect your views and I thank you for helping to make this debate a lively one. And I thank you as well for participating in this discussion. It's refreshing to respond to someone without fear of the dialogue descending into name-calling and petty insults.

57 A. What you call "standard social conservatism"—cleverly used by the left as a pejorative—which would include the ideas of men and women marrying one another, having children—which means not choosing to abort over 100,000 babies a year across Canada, sharing in the bringing up of these children, believing that children having and knowing their mother and their father is a good thing, supporting and encouraging a parent to be home to care for their child(ren) in the first six years of their lives, etc. is a lifestyle that, I suspect, a majority of (silent and bullied) Canadians would have no problem agreeing with. Are you aware that when the same-sex marriage debate last came up in the House and won by a whisker, that Parliament received the most communications they ever had, overwhelmingly AGAINST man/man, woman/woman "marriage"? That didn't deter the Liberals at all, they the Party of ram through your agenda no matter what and to H*ll with what the citizens of Canada want. By their fruits you will know them. Since the Trudeaupian '70s, as NAC and the SOW have been milking the Canadian taxpayer multi-millions, ostensibly to improve conditions for women and children, social conditions for women and children have perceptively worsened (and that is reality and fact, even admitted to by the SCW). The upside of this, for SOW, is that they can keep asking for more money to "fix" the problems they, ironically, have helped to create. Isn't this how most scams work? We have more single moms living on their own with fatherless children, we have more children at risk of becoming sexually active in early adolescence, high rates of STDs in this population (including, of course, HIV), high rates of illegal drug and alcohol use, high rates of suicide, and growing numbers of "peer oriented" youth (which is what happens when there's no adult at home), who are angry, disaffected, and disillusioned. I can't say that I blame these kids. If I were growing up in a society where no one was home and where the adults were so self-indulgent as to expect me to bring myself up, I think turning to drugs or alcohol and perfecting an FU-attitude would be a perfectly natural thing to do. Go into any classroom today, and you will discover a critical mass of neglected children, far, far more than before the institution of the agenda of "women's equality," get-as-many-women-into-the-marketplace-as-possible-so-they-can-be-economically-powerful--as powerful economically as their male counterparts (a big NAC/SOW agenda item). These children are seriously at risk on a number of scales: academically at risk (there are increasing academic issues in classrooms today with as many as one-third of the students not able to do the curriculum at their level), psychologically at risk (anti-social, psychopathic behaviours are rampant in every classroom these days, and are a serious hazard to any effective learning not only for the students exhibiting these negative behaviours but for the other students, as well), physically at risk (of early sexual encounters and, literally, of being assaulted, especially by the students with "anger management" problems), socially at risk (social skills are at an all-time low; too many kids seem to have no idea how to interact in a civil way with either their peers or their teachers). Since the feminists have hi-jacked the "women's agenda" at the government level, in unions, at universities, school boards, and the MSM, telling us that any social arrangement a woman with children wants to make is her "choice," regardless of the outcomes for the child(ren) involved in these revolving-door, anything goes, relationships, life has become tougher and tougher for our kids. (Domestic relationships that feminists give a green light to include marriages, common law relationships, a succession of casual relationships where the child(ren) has/have many "uncles," and same-sex partnerships/marriage where the child(ren) has/have two mommies or two daddies). Plain common sense dictates that most children will not thrive in many of these settings, and our school classrooms are proof of this. Since the feminists have taken over the propaganda machine of defining "equality" they have championed a number of social standards which have been nothing but disastrous for our kids: abortion on demand (paid for, BTW, by the Canadian taxpayer: some "choice" for those of us who don't happen to think that taking the life of a baby is the best answer to a stressful pregnancy), no-fault divorce which has left thousands, upon thousands, of children in broken homes (I grew up in one, so I know how hard it is) and families living in poverty, lowering the age of consensual sex from 16 to 14, which has resulted in Canadian children being the most preyed upon children in the world by international sex predators, to mention only a few. I guess we could call these initiatives "standard feminist liberalism"? These negative outcomes for our children should be proof enough of what our radical feminist sisters have foisted on our society, with our children bearing the greatest brunt of the problems. Life's increasingly a mess for our kids--and for women. So, A., you find it reprehensible that REAL Women, recognizing these risks to the safety, health, and well-being of Canadian children and families, would like to see the initiatives of "standard social conservatism" encouraged and supported in our society, initiatives which tend to be protective for women and children of many of these negative outcomes? Some of these initiatives, which you seem to find so offensive, include: stable two-parent homes: 'too difficult for you to imagine? Having mom or dad home to care for their own children: 'too retrograde an idea for you to entertain? Allowing babies to be born, possibly to be adopted if the biological mother cannot care for her offspring: 'too restricting? Protecting our children from sexual predators: 'too "conservative"? Encouraging enduring mom/dad marriages: 'not exciting enough for you, even though we know that it is within these kinds of relationships that children are least at risk of destructive behaviours? Schools are now in crisis, as they cannot come near to filling kindergarten spaces this fall. Our domestic birthrates are falling into the basement, which is going to be a huge problem now that the baby boomers are retiring and needing increasingly to draw on our medical system, which is already in freefall. The feminist agenda has been a me-first, navel gazing experiment which has miserably failed not only Canadian women but our children and the rest of society. The feminist agenda has failed to look beyond its own narcissistic "self-fulfillment" jargon to the larger issues of what it means to share with the fathers of our children the responsibility for the next generation, and what sacrifices we, as adults, need to make in order to create a safe and creative environment in which they can flourish. So, A., I find it disappointing that you are in favour of the NAC/SCW brand of equality. I think that having a few children of your own might get you out of the fantastical, Utopian ghetto you—and they—appear to inhabit. I don't want to live in it, and I sure as H*ll don't want my daughters, or anyone's kids, to be coerced into living in it. If you and the SOW want to live there…fine. But, please pay for it yourselves and stop taking gazillions of Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to create what amounts to a dark and dysfunctional Dystopia. I'm tired of financially supporting the nightmare the SOW has created for far too many children and families, all under the guise of "equality." Far from REAL Women's "restrict[ing] choice," "withhold[ing] rights," and "tell[ing] other people how to live their lives," I'd say that the SCW has perfected this style of social engineering—all at taxpayer's expense. Let the SCW now do it on their own dime— because left to their own devices, that's about what their budget would amount to.

58 The 5:39 p.m. post was mine...

1 Beautiful post.

2 Good for you getting your opinion mentioned in the Globe! These tax payer funded lobby groups have got to go, if they are worthwhile, they will get donations, like REAL women have to do, if they are past their "best buy date", they will not survive. As a female, I am totally opposed to a women's group getting my tax dollars, when they will never, ever, support anything I stand for! I can understand why males are not willing to get in this cat fight! So, thank you for your firm stand!

3 Please, Steve.. If you want to take out SOW and give your reasons for it, fine.. but at least put forth your points honestly.. rather then saying stuff like trying to claim REAL Women is a "centrist group".

4 but at least put forth your points honestly.. rather then saying stuff like trying to claim REAL Women is a "centrist group" I'm not claiming it. The evidence is there. REAL Women puts forth its platform. The hat is passed around. Donations to REAL Women aren't even tax deductible, and yet enough money comes in to keep the group quite active. A fringe radical group is not likely to be able to survive long that way. It's just about the numbers. REAL Women can make it on its own, therefore, it must be situated somewhere near the middle of the spectrum.

5 "This actually turns my blood to ice," Williams wrote last week. Really! If my blood turned to ice, I'd have difficulty typing this or breathing or staying alive. Perhaps Williams is an alien disguised as a real woman. How can she live with a surname derived from the possessive of a man's first name?

6 I cannot say this too often: In Canada males with major needs are sacrificed in favor of females with minor needs. This is wrong. It does not matter which area of society one looks at, the males with serious, life threatening needs are sacrificed so that females with monor needs can be served. SOW, among others, leads this new and dangerously unfair Canadian way of seeing things. To paraphrase Trudeau: "Allowing injustice to one, ensures injustice to all."

7 Obviously, Scott Tribe, you know nothing about REAL Women except what you hear about them on the CBC or in the MSM. Both the CBC and the mainline media have been doing a hatchet job on REAL for years. They either misrespresnt them or they completely ignore them, neither of which is fair, whereas they lionize and highlight the radical feminist agenda which, truth to be told, in no way represents the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of Canadian women. Scott Tribe, would you characterize a women's group which is pro-abortion, pro-universal daycare only, pro-GLTB, anti-men and boys, anti-motherhood as a "centrist" group? This is just the partial agenda of the NAC and SOW, and they're getting close to $25,000,000 a year of taxpayers' money to forward these initiative. Seeing as they post only about $2,000,000 they spend on programs for "underprivileged and disadvantaged" women who are "victims" of a patriarchal society (sic), there are legitmate questions about where the other 20 or so millions of dollars go. Quite probably into salaries and networking and lobbying. So they lobby for their political issues at taxpayer expense. Is this equality, either for most Canadian women who disagree with NAC and SOW's agendas or for men, who get short shrift from the feminists and our government and judiciary? It's a miracle--and a tribute to REAL Women's common sense approach to parenthool and family life--that they exist after 23 years and, in fact, are a vibrant group despite the opprobrium heaped upon them by their feminist "sisters" and the MSM. They put out a regular newsletter, full of facts you won't find in the MSM, and they make court presentations fairly often--all financed by the donations and contribtions of their own members--who, by the way, include men! REAL Women is not an exclusionary group, unlike the SOW who would never allow a man to be a member. So much for "equality." Keep all these things in mind, Scott Tribe, when you ridicule Steve's description of REAL Women as a "centrist" group. It is far more centrist than the way-out-in-left-field, $23,000,000/year agenda of NAC/SOW--and the proof is that the membership dues of their members have kept them afloat for almost 25 years. I think it quite safe to predict that if the NAC or SOW had government funding cut off, and had to survive by donations from their members, they'd shut down tomorrow.

8 The problem that exists in Canada is this; the media through the major national dailies but primarily through the CBC, and along with liberals and socialists alike, have hammered home their narrow-minded and intolerant view that legitimate social groups CAN NOT be mainstream AND Conservative. The only legitimate social groups are left-wing social groups because (in the left's small little minds again) Conservatives oppose social services and social groups alike. We are led to believe that Conservative social groups are fringe groups of radical Christians, rednecks, racists, fascists, and sexists who want to 'turn back the clock' on Canadian's 'human rights'. Take the whole same-sex marriage debate for example. It was drilled into our heads that the redefinition of marriage was a question of 'human rights'. This of course is absurd and the logic upon which such an arguement is based can be easily torn apart: "If I am a heterosexual man but I, for whatever reasons, do not believe in marriage am I thus abusing my own human rights?" The truth of the matter is that groups such as REAL Women are mainstream, centrist, and legitimate groups within Canadian society. The fact that so many Canadians have continued to provide economic support to REAL Women over the years proves that there are many Canadians, from coast to coast who support and believe in such Conservative groups. This is about breaking the liberal/socialist monopoly that exists here in Canada. From the Wheat Board to the Status of Women, the priority of every Conservative and Libertarian alike should be to keep up the pressure on the federal government and the media, getting the message out to average Canadians who are unaware or uninterested in what's going on, and organising opposition to these so-called 'essential' bureaucracies. We can still reverse and undo the damage done by Trudeau and build a better Canadian society, and it starts by taking these groups head on. After all, the devil himself was responsible for creating the Status of Women now, wasn't he?

9 If this campaign works, can we go after the Lieberal Broadcasting Corporation next? I'd give a lot to see the look on Peter Pan's face as he reads that story.

10 There was and still is a need for the Status of Women's Canada. There are still incredible inequities in wages for jobs of equal status between men and women. Women are not looking for more than their share, and yes some are really, really angry and show it. Some don't want anything to do with all men because of what they have gone through. Most men are undeserving of being lumped into the "all men are..." category, but what a gory category it can be. You have to admit it gentlemen, there are some men and institutions (like banks) that treat women like a lower species. Yes, things are getting better, but it's been through a lot of hard work and even government legislation! R-E-S-P-E-C-T ladies and gentlemen! That's what it's about. There have been steps forward and steps back, some unfortunately, have been deadly. Let's move ahead, if you please.

11 human, contrary to your assertion, the banks must be equality-seeking institutions: They "treat women [and men] like a lower species", don't they? (Or you must know something my husband doesn't. Do tell!) Seriously, your views on feminism are so . . . well so . . . so . . . dated--and stereotypical, just what the MSM and other small-minded groups want you to believe. Please broaden your horizons and check out the real story. (Not the truncated political propaganda.) I know you can do it!

12 Cheap NFL Jerseys China Online Shopping

1 It's about fucking time you wrote something conservative. Write, like, a hundred consecutive posts like this without whining about "death threats" from invalids like Robert McClelland and Deb Fricsh and people might stop referring to you as a "fucking pussy"! OK, that was mean. Here, I'll make a smiley face so I don't hurt your precious feelings, ready? ":-)"

2 I'd be more interested in weeding out the radical feminist professors in our universities.

3 Bet you a beer that first comment was from the Word Wanker herself.

4 As a female, I believe this useless organization should not get any funding, if they want to survive, they should raise their own funds! I'm tired of organizations that do represent me being given government funding. This money would be better spent on the disabled!

5 Not only did the radical feminists, aka the Status of Women (SOW), start a "counter campaign" to REAL Women, they did something really stupid to show, of course, their true colours. REAL Women thought to get a grant from SOW to help fund a conference they were having (seeing as all the other women's, aka, radical feminists', groups in Canada had been funded for years). They wrote to SOW and asked for an application form. They heard nothing. Members phoned to ask if their letter had been received and could they please have an application. They were told that REAL Women (Realistic, Equal, and Active for Life) was not an organization that promoted the equality of women. REAL Women begged to differ. When it became clear that SOW was not going to send an application to REAL Women, whose members were equally Canadian and equally women--all faiths and no faiths, women who worked outside the home and women who worked inside the home, women whose children were in daycare and women who had stay-at-home kids--REAL's president Gwen Landolt, a lawyer, made up her mind that REAL WOULD get an application. Landolt had one of her children, who was computer savvy, make up a letterhead: Lesbian Mothers of Canada, and wrote asking for an application. By return mail, she had an application in hand with a gushing letter: "Welcome to the world of government funding! If there is anything we can do to help you, please let us know." Gwen Landolt filled out the application in REAL Women's name and sent it in. Then the sh** hit the fan. David Crombie, who was the Minister in charge of women's affairs had to make a profuse apology to REAL Women and, I suspect, had some fairly harsh words for the SOWs. REAL Women did get a grant: a measly $43,0000 compared to grants given to other “women’s “ groups. Unfortunately, despite their being outed as the bigoted, one-sided, mean, lesbian-positive, biased, intolerant, not-exactly-open-or-tolerant-or diverse banshees they were/are, successive governments have continued to fund their nefarious projects. Except for a thoroughly researched and articulate article in Saturday Night by Danielle Crittendon (we're talking somewhere around 1985), Canadians would know nothing about SOW’s lopsided, UNEQUAL, and unfair agenda--or the by now millions of government dollars (that's our money, folks) this organization has used to fund its very narrow initiatives, usually having nothing to do with issues that the majority of Canadian women have an interest in. ’Any wonder that Canadian families have had so little support from the Canadian government over the years? Universal, government-funded daycare is the only option SOW favours when it comes to caring for our kids, and they have been vociferous advocates of that model while ferociously opposing any other form of child care. This is ironic as they say they favour “equality” for women, which would obviously mean choice for families when it comes to caring for their children. SOW has never been for equality for women. Their aim is female supremacy.

6 From what I know, REAL Women has remained solvent for nearly 30 years, virtually all on donations from its members, something the feminazis, who milk the public teat, could never do. REAL Women has used Access to Information legislation to find out just what the feminists do with millions of government $$ each year. Maybe REAL's website has some information on this. It's fascinating--and ridiculous! Certainly, a lot of the $$ goes to fund the Court Challenges Program, a nice little slush fund, protected from Parliamentary scrutiny, I believe, to pay for the feminists' Supreme Court challenges. REAL Women intervenes in cases too--all on their own dime. Equality, my foot. If Canadians knew the utter waste of their $$ through the Status of Women (sic)--it should read "Status of Radical Feminists"--they'd be darn angry. P.S. Just getting rid of the feminists in the universities isnÂ’t good enough. Feminist Supreme Court wins set precedent for ALL of Canada and have a very powerful and insidious affect on public policy in all kinds of institutions at all levels. (Check out your local elementary school.) Getting rid of government funding for these unhappy, utopian ladies would be a very good place to start.

7 But if we didn't have the Status of Women, we wouldn't have any rights for women in Canada at all. Just like if we got rid of the Human Rights Commissions, we would have no more human rights in Canada. That's the mentality of the average Canadian voter, it'll take a strong campaign to change their mind, simply b/c of the name.

8 What exactly is your definition of a "radical feminist"?

9 SOW also funds studies and papers designed to cause real harm to YOUR son. SOW also funds studies and papers calling for the end of free speech for males. SOW and other federal agencies are also opposed to the best interests of battered men and through that support child abuse: Current child abuse numbers run in the 113,000 case per year range, we can drop that below the 100,000 mark by simply ending discrimination against male victims of violence. Cheap, easy, helps kids and is VIOLENTLY opposed by SOW and the people who support it. We must all remember that this agency and the people who support it are opposed to human rights for half of Canada.

10 "Peter Jay", 12:24 am: Good point, and likely quite prescient. We'll see if you're right when this gets more MSM...

11 What exactly is your definition of a "radical feminist"? Actually, that's very easy. Any group that gets funding from SWC. I'm not being glib. There is a positive feedback loop at work here. Any engineer will tell you positive feedback is bad because it drives the system to an extreme state and keeps it there (like a microphone picking up the sound it is transmitting, reinforcing the same frequencies and harmonics until you get a single screeching tone). In this case, SWC is set up by a government with a particular viewpoint about how the "status" of women is to be enhanced. Initially, the bureaucrats might be mildly radical. Makes sense, since most conservative women don't look to the government to enhance their status. The agency passes out money to those women's groups with a similar viewpoint and not to others. Each successive iteration of bureaucrats is drawn from the organizations SWC supports, so on each iteration, the bureaucrats become more and more fixated on one particular form of feminism. They fund more groups like that, and strangle others as not being feminist. Positive feedback takes over and you end up with the montonic feminist screech we tend to hear all the time. Not just about status in the workplace, not just about equal pay, but as requiring any group to support abortion, requiring any group to support left-wing social justice, requiring any group to decry conservatism, etc, etc.

12 GREAT definition of "radical feminist," Steve. Hallmarks of a radical feminist: * rabidly anti-men; * men are always the perpetrators of violence and despite the evidence that women are at fault at least 50% of the time, their motto is "Don't confuse me with the facts."; * convinced of women's supremacy; * not supportive of motherhood or, if supportive, motherhood, after the baby is born, must be without a male partner; your partner, to be acceptable, must be another woman; *says she's for "choice," but only if you agree with her worldview; if you are a woman and choose marriage and/or to have stay-at-home kids, your husband is often considered a rapist and you are considered his chattel; *considers the only acceptable choice for women with children is universal, government-funded, daycare; mothers who stay at home to care for their own children are traitors to the feminist cause; *absolute dedication to abortion on demand and anyone who dares question a woman's right to "choose," (aka to abort) is anathema to their cause and is shunned, despised, not worth listening to; *all of their agenda must be funded by the government; *women are always victims and, therefore, are deserving of government funding; *anyone who questions their agenda, can, and will be, treated with the utmost contempt and, furthermore, it is acceptable to misrepresent their position and heap vendective on them: all in a day's government-funded work.

13 Don't forget SOW's counterpart in Ontario (OWD). What you say is so sad yet so true. If a woman has a professional/technical disagreement with one of their ilk, you are a big mean bully (and they will run to the nearest man to make the big mean bully go away). There is no room for competent professional women (like REAL) in their world who doesn't 'keep the faith'. If you are a man (and boy do they want to get rid of you boys, you have no reason to exist in their minds), you won't even get to the disagreement -- you are not allowed to speak your mind in the first place.

14 If any of you want to check out a cool website, checkout masculinism.net This is Steve Dixon's own blog. He's the man who introduced the term 'masculinism' into the English language. I especially like his idea of men skiffing fags off of women and having them foot the bill for a date. The ball is rolling so to speak, the forces of good are getting ready to take on the bull-dyke radical feminists once and for all. I'm completely taking the piss right now, so don't mind me! But check the blog out, it's quite interesting!

15 Any group that gets funding from the SOW. Steve, that's not a proper definition of a "radical feminist," and you know it. I'd still honestly like to know what you consider to be "radical." For that matter, I'd be interested in your definition of "conservative feminist," as well as your thoughts on what you would consider to be "mainstream feminism". Here's a list of recent SOW grants. Mostly, they seem to be focused on training programs and anti-poverty/homelessness strategies. Sounds rather benign to me.

16 A: As Steve has already answered your question about the definition of a "radical feminist," in addition to his referencing radical feminists as "Any group that gets funding from the SOW," here's what he said, as you appear to have missed it: Radical feminists are women who screech about: * status in the workplace; * equal pay [and that's NOT equal pay for equal work, but equal pay 'for work of equal value'; who's going to decide THAT? More bureaucracy?]; * support for abortion, * supporting left-wing social justice; * conservatism, etc. His is not an exhaustive list, nor is mine below his, but both lists hit on a number of qualifiers if you want to be belong to either NAC or SOW, or be a recipient of any of their grants. I checked out where the SOW grants are going and notice that they are going to all of the usual suspects. The language describing the projects the taxpayer is funding is so general as to be almost meaningless: $100,000 is going to a project at the Community Microskills Development Centre which is “designed to improve economic and social opportunities for immigrant, racial minority and low income women in the Etobicoke area." What would these improved opportunities include? Another grant of $29,000 "will support a group of low income women on Vancouver Island to continue with their collective effort to make known their particular perspectives [what would these be?] on issues of public policy related to social and economic exclusion with a broader range of audiences, including other women's groups, academic researchers, students, anti-poverty groups, government officials and journalists." "A broader range of audiences"? And this broader range of "audiences" includes other women's groups, academic researchers, students, anti-poverty groups, government officials and journalists? These audiences sound like the usual groups to whom these women would already have made known "their particular perspective" on inclusion/exclusion. The grants listed are those over $25,000, for the “first Quarter” – “2006 – 2007.” They amount to $419,000, almost half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money, and not including the total of grants under $25,000—or the amount of grants for the whole year. The point is, none of these initiatives are new, and many of them include a narrow range of women’s issues, many of which, in any case, are being dealt with in other government portfolios. Why do women have a special status portfolio when men don’t? That doesn’t seem like equality to me.

17 Jesus, what a bunch of whiners. If any of you want to check out a cool website, checkout masculinism.net This is Steve Dixon's own blog. He's the man who introduced the term 'masculinism' into the English language. I especially like his idea of men skiffing fags off of women and having them foot the bill for a date. The ball is rolling so to speak, the forces of good are getting ready to take on the bull-dyke radical feminists once and for all. I'm completely taking the piss right now, so don't mind me! But check the blog out, it's quite interesting! Nice crowd of brutal, bitter women-haters you're attacting these days, Stephen. Someone should direct Bev Oda and Mauril Bélanger to your blog commentary to see what kind of mentality motivates you and your readership.