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.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) is the largest feminist organization in Canada. A coalition of more than 700 member groups, NAC has been fighting for women's equality for 27 years.
The crucial difference there is that SWC is a federal government agency, and NAC is a feminist organization. NAC does receive funding from SWC, but so do a wide variety of groups.
Someone can correct me (please!) if this analogy is wrong, but I feel like SWC is to NAC as The Department of Indian Affairs is to The Assembly of First Nations. I don't know if that analogy helps at all, but there you have it.
Edit: See, this is what I am talking about. Someone just posted this in response to an earlier entry:
It becomes the litmus test when women who would supposedly support this barely come up with a whimper when SOW (again, funny acronymn) dies out because they can't sustain themselves. I know its hard to understand especially when its probably close to your heart, but when revenue is the key to push your agenda, it is the acid test. Look at Real Women, they rely on the support of individuals and they are self-sustaining.
To which I replied:
REAL Women are an ORGANIZATION. They have members who pay dues or whatever. SWC is a GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. Governmental agencies aren't revenue-generating. Like, it's not like you can say "Hey, how much did the Canadian Food Inspection Agency bring in last month. NOTHING? Scrap 'em!"
I'm not posting that to show how clever I am or anything, but just to demonstrate that I really feel like some of the opposition is coming from a place of misunderstanding.
- Music:Water and feed are the tools that I need.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
audrawilliams- post-ponycow
- My boyfriend is a hot indie-rapper.
Page Summary
- allyfromtheblog : (no subject) [+0]
- big_paul : (no subject) [+0]
- queencallipygos : (no subject) [+1]
- locketportrait : (no subject) [+2]
- littlegirltoast : (no subject) [+0]
- loolica : (no subject) [+0]
- moxieholic : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : SWC [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+4]
Comments
Which, I do think. Also, funny.
As I dust off my tinfoil hat, in a day and age of think-tanks paid for by vested monied interests that masquerade as neutral public-interest groups (cough-cough, Fraser institute, ahem!), I can't help but wonder if some of that confusion is deliberate.
Oh, I have a theory that at least 50% of all opposition easily can be chalked up to misunderstanding. I used to hang out on the Yahoo religious discussion boards (THOSE were wild, believe me), and got into a couple discussions with people who started out being really, really aggressive anti-gay marriage or anti-abortion activists. But by continuing to discuss things with them, at some point, something like this would happen:
THEM: ...Now, I don't mind if those people live together, but I don't understand why they keep saying they want to be "legally married." What does "legally married" mean, anyway?
ME: Well, in this country, there are certain legal rights that only married couples have.
THEM: Wait, really? Like what?
ME: Well, for instance, the right for one partner to leave property to the other in their will, or the right for one partner to be considered the "next of kin" when it comes to making medical decisions, or the right for one partner to be able to insure the other on their medical or life insurance.
THEM: Wow. There are laws that restrict that?
ME: Right. Unless you're married, there are certain legal and financial things you can't do. And all these couples are saying is that they would like those legal protections that are extended to married couples. What the church does with them is a different matter completely.
THEM: So, wait, that's what this is about? That's all?
ME: Yep.
THEM: ...Huh. Well, now wait, I don't have a problem with that, lemme rethink this....
Any protests or marches planned?
FN
I noticed that one blogger kept referring to REAL Women as an "agency", too, so that probably confuses things further.
I don't feel that INAC is to FN people as SWC is to women.
THAT'S why people are calling for the SWC to be cut. Yes, it perhaps does some good things, but it does not represent the views of all women in Canada. If it did, there would be no problem.
Solution? Stop selecting only feminist groups for funding, and start funding various pro-family projects and groups that propose a different point of view on how to solve the problems existing for women today. If we really want to solve these ongoing problems, why not include all voices in the discussion?
Unless, of course, you're only interested in supporting a pro-feminist, pro-abortion, pro-immorality agenda. If not, then there's not problem listening to the other side of the coin, now is there?
How would you like it if the Canadian government had a program that only funded people and organisations that have a social conservative point of view? These organizations and people represent every thing you disagree with but here is a government program that is using some of your tax dollars subsidising them. This is the problem that many people have with SWC; it only gives money to feminist with a certain point of view like NAC but gives nothing to other feminist like Real Women. Since a good argument can be made that Real Women represent more Canadian women point of view then NAC, SWC is giving money to feminist organizations that are on the fringe of society.
Deno
I've been trying to actually answer questions as they come in, and I'd appreciate it if I could ask you a questin, too. Can you please let me know what these "fringe groups" are who you feel SWC shouldn't be funding?
I'm also curious about the argument that REAL Women are more representative of the vies of Canadian women than groups that SWC funds.
As for your first question, I wouldn't like it at all if only social conservative organizations got funding, of course. Luckily, these are the criteria for funding eligibility for SWC:
If REAL Women doesn't qualify for funding, can you tell me why that is? I suspect, but I am not sure, that it's because they don't meet the eligibility requirement re: the Charter. Because REAL Women are not in favour of equal rights for gay Canadians.
Do you feel like those eligibility requirements are unreasonable?
Of course, I doubt any of them will slap their foreheads and take their remarks back; it's easier to simply pretend the usual bile was headed where they intended all along.
I remember reading about the Wilhelmine German "Bund zur Bekämpfung der Frauenemanzipation" (League to Combat Women's Emancipation) in Richard Evans and having a hard time not snickering at the earnest preposterousness of the name and concept.
Apparently nowadays organized antifeminism is no laughing matter.