Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

scrabble
Okay. Before you read this excerpt below, check it out. This is Status of Women Canada's mandate:
Status of Women Canada (SWC) is the federal government agency which promotes gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country. 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.
WOW THAT SURE IS PRETTY FUCKING FEMINIST AND RADICAL.

Okay here we go.
Landoldt told LifeSiteNews.com that in the 33 years of its existence, Status of Women has never funded or represented any group that has any other political or ideological position than those of the radical feminist agenda. “Why should the government continue paying for an organization that has always represented only a tiny portion of public opinion, to lobby the government against itself?” Landoldt said.

“Canada is the country with one of the most powerful feminist lobbies in the world and it is entirely because it is being funded by the government, or in other words, by taxpayers. No one has dared to question or criticize it until now. Why do we have a standing committee on the status of women? Why a cabinet position? Why not for men? Why not for some other group?” Landoldt asked.

REAL Women’s criticisms of Status of Women have garnered some results. Ian Brodie, Stephen Harper’s chief of Staff said the REAL Women letter “raises interesting points that warrant close inspection,” and forwarded it to Bev Oda, the minister for Heritage and the Status of Women. On the same day that Mallick’s column appeared, REAL Women was, for the first time, invited to a Status of Women meeting in Ottawa to air their concerns.

Landoldt said, “We do want this radical agency to be disbanded in the government, the cabinet and the standing committee. It’s the only thing that has sustained the feminist grip in Canada. They do not have public support but are keeping going at public expense.”
Full story

This actually turns my blood to ice. I am calling my MP right now. I mean, I know she's on board, but still I am calling her. Lifesite is good enough to supply a tool to help you find your MP. Let's use it! Also call Status Of Women Minister Bev Oda, much as even typing that phrase is heart breaking.

Okay I am gonna go call them both I promise.

Comments

( 19 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]emiline wrote:
Aug. 16th, 2006 07:42 pm (UTC)
Gah! I am emailing my current MP, my soon-to-be-MP (when I move in a week and a bit), and that Bev lady. Those REALwomen people are CRAZY!
[info]emiline wrote:
Aug. 16th, 2006 08:15 pm (UTC)
I even emailed Stephen Harper! Not that I thought that would do much, but still.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 05:50 am (UTC)
Some of us see things differently
I'm not a Canadian, so this isn't my fight, but in Australia we have the same kind of thing with our office for the status of women.

The problem with the OSW in Australia, and which is probably much the same as SWC is that only women with the same ideology are represented.

"Status of Women Canada (SWC) is the federal government agency which promotes gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country. 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."

This sounds pretty good and is the kind of statement almost all women would agree with, but how to go about these things is where people disagree.

I believe in marriage, as traditionally defined, family and the sanctity of life. I also believe that what happens in the home is of far greater importance than what happens in the workforce. OSW and presumably SWC do not.

This is why women like me are tired of being unheard. And even more tired of the Gov't funding organisations to ignore us.

And that's disrespectful, intolerant and hardly a celebration of diversity, now is it?

Louise
www.louiseyvette.blogspot.com
(Anonymous) wrote:
Aug. 26th, 2006 04:55 pm (UTC)
SoW
Real Women represent more of the Canadian Female population than you.
[info]emiline wrote:
Aug. 27th, 2006 03:28 am (UTC)
Re: SoW
And you know that because...?
[info]thelatinist wrote:
Aug. 16th, 2006 08:07 pm (UTC)
Just the way they use the word 'feminist' makes my skin crawl.
[info]danieljohn wrote:
Aug. 16th, 2006 08:24 pm (UTC)
Finding your MP
Re: Lifesite's tool. They're actually embedding this in an iframe:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/PostalCode.asp?Source=SM

There is a file that any group or political party can buy that is a list of postal codes and corresponding federal ridings. It's expensive, although such data helps promote participation in public life.

Technically, what lifesite is doing is ripping off Parliament's copyright. For data that should be free and in the public domain.
[info]grammallama wrote:
Aug. 16th, 2006 08:54 pm (UTC)
It took me a very long time to read that article, because I had to repeatedly stop, put my head down on my desk, and take deep breaths before continuing.

My MP is a lost cause. I'll contact Bev Oda.
[info]big_paul wrote:
Aug. 16th, 2006 09:17 pm (UTC)
Isn't Bev Oda the one who's been prostituting herself (OK, maybe that's a bad choice of words...) to the recording industry in the hopes of bringing in DCMA-style legislation in Canada?

In the spirit of that, let me take the nutbar position that, let's encourage Harper in this sort of thing! In fact, I think I'm gonna join the conservative party (Or CCRAP) with the goal of pushing the party as far to the right as possible.

The more extreme Harper gets, the easier it'll be for him to be defeated by somebody like Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff.

But, yeah, "Status of Women Minister Bev Oda" is like saying "MADD president Ralph Klein" or "Protection of children minister clifford Olson"...
(Anonymous) wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 02:51 pm (UTC)
Status of women, etc.
Another nut bar left wing site. It's good to know not only who your enemies are, but where. Harper defeated by Rae or Ignatieff? Ha. Guess you didn't know that thousands of Conservatives have joined the Liberal party to vote for Rae, did you? It's also good to know the IQ level of you maroons continues to hold at a percentage just above a common house plant.
[info]windsea wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 04:59 pm (UTC)
Re: Status of women, etc.
"you maroons"

*snerk*. At least the common house plants I know can spell ;-) :-)
(Anonymous) wrote:
Aug. 27th, 2006 02:52 pm (UTC)
Re: Status of women, etc.
Ummm, genius--"maroons" is taken from, I believe, a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Not knowing this makes me think you are either a maroon yourself, or didn't have time for Bugs Bunny as a kid because you had therapy scheduled at the same time...
[info]buddcampbell wrote:
Aug. 17th, 2006 03:42 pm (UTC)
FULL STORY FROM LIFE SITE
I don't know why you would link to something like Lifesite with a button that say's "Full Story", which to me implies a link to a legitimate news site (OKay, that's a bit debatable too, ... but you know what I mean!).

Has this effort on Landolt's part been in The Globe?
[info]audrawilliams wrote:
Aug. 17th, 2006 03:45 pm (UTC)
Re: FULL STORY FROM LIFE SITE
Because it's good to keep an eye on what they're up to is why.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 05:12 am (UTC)
?status of women?
The truth is that of course the minstry in question should be done away with and any nonsese that came out of there should be swept and burried in the dump of history, never to be seen by children lest they hung their heads in shame of their parents generation.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 02:43 pm (UTC)
Status of woMEN
Looks the tide is finally turning. Reality always comes back eventually.

Does this site allow free speech and other view points?

I'll bet not. I don't understand your screening process either. Why is it so hard to post comment here. What are you afraid of?

Duke
[info]littlegirltoast wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 03:17 pm (UTC)
Re: Status of woMEN
It's a personal web journal, of course it doesn't allow free speech.

Do you allow free speech in your home, Duke?
(Anonymous) wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 10:50 pm (UTC)
REAL women
First of all, drop the sarcastic tone. Second, if you wish to engage in intelligent conversation, then act like an adult, lose the hystrionics and swearing.
Third, be honest.
a.If NAC were about women's economic autonomy, then its mission is accomplished. In spite of the much trumped wage disparities between men and women, when one takes into account things such as maternity leave, compensation for danger, and so on, the so called gap disappears. Furthermore, in spite of the much vaunted belief that divorce impoverishes women, it impoverishes men even more so.
b.As far as violence against 'women and children' is concerned, four points. First, most violence is against men, not women. Second, statistics which purport to show an endemic culture of violence against women are deliberately skewed and distorted (check out the Independent Women's Forum website). Third, violence against children
is perpetrated mainly by single mothers and their partners.
Fourth, violence within lesbian relationships happens more often than feminists will admit.
c.As far as advancing 'women's human rights,' that is the function of institutions within a democracy, and it is men who fight, to the death, if need be,to defend democracy.
REAL women has been around for a very long time, so this belated largesse on the part of the duplicitous organization which has been helping itself to my tax dollars is truly vile and hypocritical.
Perhaps your organization could, if it truly represents all women, collect a dollar from the female half of the population every month, and thereby have itself a hundred million dollar budget, instead of being the professional parasites they are.
[info]audrawilliams wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 10:56 pm (UTC)
Re: REAL women
Do you think that NAC and SWC are the same thing? Because they really really really are NOT.
( 19 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2009
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Powered by LiveJournal.com