Memo to Jennifer Ditchburn of via Macleans: I’d like to draw your attention to something –
Several pro-Conservative Internet blogs have signed onto a campaign to eliminate Status of Women Canada, a Trudeau-era federal agency that promotes women’s equality and advancement.
The campaign was kickstarted by REAL Women of Canada, one of Canada’s most vocal organizations of social conservatives. It has long urged the federal government to axe Status of Women – but this time its message is being widely discussed and supported among some in the Conservative Internet community.
[…]
But fears that the campaign might find favour within a caucus that includes many social conservatives have taken root in some quarters.
Halifax communications consultant and blogger Audra Williams has mounted her own counter-offensive, urging readers to write to their MP in support of Status of Women Canada.
“This actually turns my blood to ice,” Williams wrote last week. “I am calling my MP right now. I mean, I know she’s on board, but still I am calling her.”
It isn’t just “social conservatives” who want the “Harper government to axe Status of Women Canada” and marginalizing their critics in such a manner is disingenuous – at best. Had you bothered to report on who and what SOW spends our taxdollars on, those fearful squeals from feminists might have been placed in the appropriate context.
This quote from Monica Lysack of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada is particularly ridiculous:
“When you look at women in Canada and their human rights compared to international standards, we have a long way to go.”
What complete and utter bullshit. Modern organized feminism has nothing to do with human rights for women, and everything to do with pushing the agenda of the left – the word “Women” in Status Of Women reduced to a device to ensure continued government funding.
If this were not the case, if SOW genuinely functioned as a voice on “womens issues” in Canada, the organization would maintain official political neutrality on issues like abortion and child care. There would have been no us-vs-them content in the Ditchburn article, because the “social conservatives” she refers to would be playing a meaningful role in policy development within the organization.
Pamela Bone, in the Australian, illustrates how (like the word “progressive”) the word “women” has been quietly appropriated as yet another euphanism for “the hard left”;
IN Tehran in June, several thousand people held a peaceful demonstration calling for legal changes that would give a woman’s testimony in court equal value to a man’s. The demonstrators, most of them women, were attacked with tear gas and beaten with batons by men and women from Iran’s State Security Forces, according to Amnesty International.
Iranian women may not travel without their husband’s permission but they are allowed to wield a truncheon against other women.
Do you think women in Western countries marched in solidarity with the Iranian women demonstrators? Of course not. Do you think there are posters and graffiti at universities condemning the Iranian President? Of course not. You know, without needing to go there, that any graffiti at universities will be condemning George W. Bush, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (I concede Bush is easier to spell.)
You know, before you get there, that at the Melbourne Writers Festival starting this weekend the principal hate figures are going to be Bush and John Howard. You know there will be many sympathetic references to David Hicks but probably none to Ashraf Kolhari, an Iranian mother of four who has been in jail for five years for allegedly having sex outside marriage and, until last week, who was under sentence of death by stoning.
Thank goddess, as they used to say: a few Western feminists have begun to wonder why women who once marched for women’s rights are marching alongside people who would take away even the most basic of those rights.
The latest is Sarah Baxter, a former Greenham Common protester, who in Britain’s The Sunday Times had this to say about a recent demonstration in London calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon: “Women pushing their children in buggies bearing the familiar symbol of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament marched alongside banners proclaiming ‘We are all Hezbollah now’, and Muslim extremists chanting, ‘Oh Jew, the army of Mohammed will return’.
“I could never have imagined that many of the same crowd I hung out with then would today be standing shoulder to shoulder with militantly anti-feminist Islamic fundamentalist groups whose views on women make Western patriarchy look like a Greenham peace picnic.”
A little late to the game, Ms. Baxter is.
More reaction…
“Why would I want to do better? You got a simple fact wrong and your lemmings have followed you all over town. No big deal. I’m sure you’ll fix it eventually, after yelping a bit more.”
‘nother plate of Tender Vittles for said Wells?
Yes, Kate apparently overlooked a simply fact, but how about Ms. Ditchburn’s overt politicization and selective publishing of relevant content, Mr. Wells? Would you care to comment on that?
You’re a bright guy. Deal with the camel, not the gnat for heaven’s sake.
Judge Ju, er Carole, has put the hammer down. Case closed. But, yer honouress, will there be an apeal? As PE said, once upon a time, the law has no business in the boardrooms of the nashurne….-
Sleeping sex ruled illegal
Posted by Snickering Hound
Calgary Sun ^ | 8-24-06 | Kevin Martin
Sex with a passed-out partner isn’t OK even if they consented prior to losing consciousness, Alberta’s top court ruled yesterday. But in a dissenting opinion that could send the case to the Supreme Court, one judge said the ruling will mean couples can’t get amourous while one is asleep. Justice Carole Conrad said the majority decision by two fellow judges will prohibit one partner from touching another sexually while the other is sleeping. “It is important to consider the implications of concluding that unconsciousness automatically means a lack of consent,” Conrad said in her dissent. “It would mean that a…
Paul Wells wrote:
“You got a simple fact wrong and your lemmings have followed you all over town”
Is that a typo?
Perhaps you meant to write “lemming” and your finger slipped. For someone who entered the discussion under the premise of mocking the “truth-telling” of the blogosphere, it seems to have escaped your notice that I;
a) Did not disparage Macleans or invite comments on that vein, and
b) There is only one response I can see in these comments (currently numbering over 40) in which Macleans was mentioned at all.
How that defines that single contributor as a “lemmings” is anyone’s guess.
Now, back to the meat of your complaint:
In my haste, I negligently typed “of” instead of “via”, when identifying the source link. My bad.
If you direct your attention back to the top of the post, you will note this has been corrected, which is indeed, how the blogosphere functions as a fact checking vehicle.
(Albeit, a petty, nitpicky, irrelevant fact that I’d ordinarily not bother with, but you’re an important Canadian[tm] journalist who is hyperaware of who works for whom. So I’ve made the correction.)
But, like so many in your profession, that’s something you still haven’t wrapped your head around. In your original comment, you actually demonstrate the very strength you hoped to mock.
Fact checking (I assume you meant by the phrase “truth-telling” as no one I’m aware of has ever claimed such status) is a function of reader interaction with the blogger.
And you, Paul Wells, have just shown a few thousand ordinary Canadians how it works. Easy? Easy.
If only the same could be said of the established media, the number one story today would be how your industry was sucked in by the faked Red Cross ambulance strike story in Lebanon.
You might even be writing about it on Inkless Well, yes?
Instead, you’re trolling the comments section of my blog.
Not that whether the article in question appears under a Macleans banner or a CP one has any bearing whatsoever on the content of my post.
Because it’s not about the content, is it? It’s all about you.
You got a simple fact wrong and your lemmings have followed you all over town
Well, it seems someone felt left out of the ongoing substantive discussion and just yelped your-shoe-is-untied from the far side of the playground. So her employer was misattributed. Corrected. No big deal. What’s that change as far as the content?
If some of the comments are bothering you, Paul, and you feel too inadequate to participate, why not really come out with it? But, I think you just did.
Ha ha! Paul Wells is a big ol’ poopy head.
“Because it’s not about the content, is it? It’s all about you.”
and the high horse he rode in on.
Just another taxpayer funded Liberal organization.
Always fighting the Conservatives on our dime.
The list is almost endless.
This whole Paul Wells untied shoelace meme reminds of a Fawlty Towers episode where Basil beats his car senseless with a willow branch.
But then again, as Chuck Barris once said, I like burnt toast.
Dear Paul Wells,
You are aware of course, that you’ve just been handed your ass by a girl.
Security
In old Get Smart episodes, when 99 upstages 86, 86 usually disappears under a cone of silence, while Agent 13 gets the couch.
99:”Never harry a career girl.”
86:”I asked you not to tell me that.”
“Several pro-Conservative Internet blogs have signed onto a campaign to eliminate Status of Women Canada, a Trudeau-era federal agency”
Ms. Ditchburn would have been more accurate if she had written that conservative bloggers have signed onto a campaign to eliminate the disastrous consequences of the Trudeau-era.
And after congratulating myself just yesterday on my ability to “cut to the chase”, Kathy Shaidle writes the response I should have.
Kate, how apropos! Could you have proven the whole point of this thread any more emphatically?!?
McGuinty’s proxy, Borys’s buddy, has The Answer; More taxes. Motto: Meet You at The Gap.
The socialist panacea for the gwg: More, higher taxes; rob Jane to pay Phyllis. …-
Kennedy proposes plan to erase gender wage gap
VANCOUVER (CP) – Liberal leadership hopeful Gerard Kennedy is proposing an ambitious plan to erase the wage gap between men and women.
cnews
“Kate, how apropos! Could you have proven the whole point of this thread any more emphatically?!?”
She could have linked to a cartoon featuring Wile E. Coyote, Genius, with a teensie weensie umbrella above his head as a rock the size of Manhattan is mere inches from crushing him into talcum powder.
I believe the box reads “Acme Newspaper Co.”
Ah Yes, Audra Williams, the HARD-LEFT blogger who banned me from rabble discussion boards for the words ‘I don’t agree with abortion’.
Of course, Ms. Ditchburn fails to report that Williams is a lefty – something she doesn’t forget to do when talking about “social conservative bloggers.”
Also, it would be more appropriate to say, “…A Trudeau-era federal agency that is tasked with the goal of advancing…”
Ditchburn shouldn’t assume they’ve been sucessful…kate’s post is indicative of that.
oooooohhh…this is tasty….come on paul…we are waiting for a juicy response….
By the by, I read your material all the time and am a HUGE fan.
Nevertheless, Security’s comment was truth/fact telling to be sure.
Paul (Chubby Inkless) Wells – a “blogger” (sans comments) who likes to diss the blogosphere from the comfort of “Maclean’s” (aka “CBC in print”).
I guess because it seems that I’m the “lemmings” Paul Wells is talking about, I’d better ‘fess up. Here’s what I said, among other things, at 11:30 this morning:
“One small addition which, I think, is relevant about Jennifer Ditchburn’s slanted article in Mclean’s [then I go on to say that she used to work for the CBC].”
“Mclean’s has her on board now to ‘speak the Canadian values truth’ to the rest of us…”
“‘Makes me glad I cancelled my Mclean’s subscription a few months ago.”
I stand solidly behind my first and last mentions of Mclean’s, but admit that I am wrong in my second mention when I said “Mclean’s has her on board now…”
Please forgive this layperson’s ignorance, Mr. Wells. We don’t always notice the finer points of publishing–like just who is working for whom. If I was taking Ms. Ditchburn to the Ontario Press Council for inaccurate and biased reporting, I would make very sure to note that she works for CP and not Mclean’s.
On the other hand, when I said that “Mclean’s has her [Jennifer Ditchburn] on board now,” I could equally have meant just for that particular issue of the magazine. In any case, my mistake was not intentional–and as Kate has so ably pointed out, whether or not CP or Mclean’s is to blame for Jennifer Ditchburn’s less-than-stellar-or-truth-telling article completely sidesteps the content of her original post.
So, shall we get back to the meat of this argument, as we shoo the fly off…?
MacLeans = CBC in print……that one is just plain wrong…
As I said on the content of the original post, Harper government wont touch it till there is a majority, particlarly because you will get some distortions…i.e. socons etc, when much of the time it isnt so cons but “just plain folks” that dont want the money wasted….
It was built for symbolism, it may be torn down for symbolism and it never was about anything other symbolism….time to Move On!! (to borrow a phrase)
I will believe in its need again if Shakira does a cover of I Am Woman!
If you really want to see Wells at his finest, check him out when he’s attempting to write aout jazz. It’s embarassing. You can just see him, white socks and sandals, snapping his fingers and trying to get it.
I frequenly see P’Wells hanging around the jazz discs at the HMV outlet on Sparks Street in Ottawa – if I see him there today, perhaps I’ll direct a “Nyah nyah!” in his direction. If I’ve first stopped off at one of the patio pubs out in front, that is.
Well, Paul Wells sure ain’t Mark Steyn!
MacLeans = CBC in print
That’s not fair – I think it’s come around a lot since Ken Whyte took over, both in terms of readability and a lessened bias toward TO latte-liberal perspectives. Although some of the back-of-mag articles get a bit frothy and sometimes verge on advertorials
Yeah baby! I just love it when the SOWs and Pinkos get all defensive and are on the run.
YEEHAA!
Bunch of pathetic children.
Dudley: I agree—Maclean’s is much more readable now. TIME Canada is awful—it is basically the American version, with very little Canadian based reporting. I subscribed to Macleans, then switched to TIME, and went back to Macleans. It is always good to get the perspective of our fellow countrymen(women) no matter what region we hail from.
By the way, it’s Macleans, not MacLeans—heehee.
Just had to do it. 🙂
Dudley, Stephen,
While I might agree that Maclean’s has improved since Ken Whyte came along, it still exhibits many of the CBC’s characteristic socialist biases. Even Ken Whyte can’t overcome Maclean’s original inertia (e.g. “Worst President in 100 Years?”) and its need to satisfy the CBC mentality of its original readership.
I recently renewed my subscription based mostly on Mark Steyn’s presence. But my continued subscribership is highly conditional (and at the moment tenuous).
Thank you Kate for the best laugh I’ve had in a very tough week. Be prepared for Mr. Wells to come back and point out spelling and/or grammatical errors. (euphemism/euphanism)
Here’s one for you Paul:
Pedant
My bad again: Macleans NOT Mclean’s… ;-(
I subscribe to MacLean’s. Mark Steyn has a Column. MacLean’s is an exceptionally rational voice in an otherwise rabidly leftist Canadian media culture. Anyone who hasn’t read MacLean’s lately should pick up a copy. Honestly. If you don’t believe my sincerity, visit my blog. I am hardly a person to defend leftism.
ET @ 1:20 pm…
Good summary of the whole situation…….
earl trossachs 4:53. Your comment made me remember Steve Martin in “The Jerk”.
“useless…to the point of complicity”….
A very intersting expression, Bob, but beats me what the Hell you’re trying to say…not that it matters…
lookout,
That is the most pationate and telling exposition of MY position I have ever read. Well done!
Hassle,
A well chosen couple of examples that illustrate the complete disinterest of SOW in the status of women.
A surprisingly civil BATB says “A very intersting expression, Bob, but beats me what the Hell you’re trying to say…not that it matters…”
Shorter Bob: Go Kate! And anyone else who is pro-freedom of women rather than pro-equality. I just wish y’all had spoken up years ago; it’s not like Fem-O-Fascism magically became a cause worth fighting for this week. For example, I would like to direct your attention to a blog I discovered earlier this week:
silencenomore.blogspot.com/
This guy is up there with Laurent from Le Blog de Polyscopique in my Public Policy Analyst Pantheon, in my conceited opinion, and he’s been speaking out against feminism, with brillian analysis and little support, for a year and a half. Why haven’t I heard of this guy? It’s guys like that who impress me, not the cause o’ the week gang.
See silencenomore.blogspot.com/2006/08/economics-of-child-support.html for one example post.
Paul Wells, when are you and your ilk going to ever learn that most of us pop over to blogs like Kate’s not because we are “lemmings”, but because we find truth refreshing?
Grab yourself a copy of Fallaci’s Force of Reason and learn a thing or two about women who appreciate the truth.
Perhaps then you won’t have such a silly attitude toward Kate’s blog.
If that’s all too hard for you to handle then best you stick to writing for the MSM.
OK I confess, Wimpy is a male.
I was brought up, as a male, with “Women and children go first”. Should I die as a result, I had done my duty.
How does this fit into the feministas view of things.. Would they bitch about white (OK I am a white male) males brutalizing women in their rush for the lifeboats?
Yes, of course they would because the SOW is a self-serving bunch of governement teat sucking whores.
Just cut their funding and see how long their ‘supporters’ can continue to keep this dysfunctional organization alive. And while they’re at it, why not pull the plug on Maude Barlow’s self-serving group and others like it? Trudeau’s dead. Move on ladies.
Hey, Wimpy, I’ve always pictured you as a white male. Fortunately, being in favour of authentic equality, I’ve never taken those attributes against you!
Many thanks for your kind words. ‘Delighted to be of service!
Wimpy, you won’t get any medal from feminists for sending the women and children ahead of yourself to the lifeboats. As a white male, your life is an annoyance every year you live beyond sperm donor to them. My God, you are a worthless piece of s–t.
Speaking of which, is Paul Wells(who, as an American, draws a blank down here) not going to play come with us? Another drive-by troll on the loose, then?
AXE that bunch of lib/left overweight menopausal bullbitches and their government teat sucking mentality. When I look around today and see the number of cracker jack women in business who needs the status of women with their hermaphroditic view of REAL Women. Real Women sure as hell don’t. When I look at our friends there isn’t one woman among them that takes a back seat to anyone, male or female. They are smart, aggressive, caring and fun to be around. They are truly women. There isn’t one that I would care to lock horns with as they can stand up for themselves, including those “lowly housewives”. When I look at my wife’s circle of girl friends they would eat that bunch of status women for breakfast. As my wife’s investment club group said, the status group is just a bunch of Lesbos hanging on to a job, probably the only one they can get. Amen.
Kate
You Rock, what more can I say.
Western Canadian, well said. I’m SMILING!
Good for “silence no more,” Bob; you say “he’s been speaking out against feminism, with brillian analysis and little support, for a year and a half…”
Well, you might be interested to know that I’ve been doing the same for over 25 years, Bob, and I’ll bet a whole lot of bloggers on this thread have been speaking against radical feminism for almost as long or longer.
So, today’s thread, for many of us, is hardly “the cause o’ the week.” Just so we’re clear on that, OK?
is Paul Wells(who, as an American, draws a blank down here) not going to play come with us
Just what are you suggesting Penny?
Read the letters to the G & M, in “More reaction” above to see the face of real hate. The fraudulent, ignorant, altogether worm-ridden and orchestrated understanding that people have of REAL Women is breathtaking.
It’s very scary to see the smiley-face masks removed from these “equality seeking”, hate-spewing, pock marked bigots. What Pharisees (self-rightous judgmentalists) and hypocrites!
A substantially less civil BATB says: “Well, you might be interested to know that I’ve been doing the same for over 25 years”
I may have been born yesterday, but I stayed up all night. Show me evidence and I’ll believe you.
“and I’ll bet a whole lot of bloggers on this thread have been speaking against radical feminism for almost as long or longer.”
There is little to no evidence to support this, which is kinda my point. Show me the evidence of “a whole lot of bloggers in this thread” and 30 year old organizations devoted to and proficient in fighting radical feminism. Be specific.
For example, by my reckoning our gracious hostess here at SDA has made maybe ten, maybe 20 specifically anti-feminist posts in the last year – and about 600 pro-war posts, out of, what, 1000 posts or so? I’ve had more comments deleted here at SDA than Kate has written anti-feminism articles, for one handy metric. Great blogger, but fighting feminism isn’t her forte.
Here’s an idea for you, BATB: perpetuate the stereotype that women are emotional harridans who treat data like Superman treats kryptonite, and eschew a civil and factual response with souced data in favour of something hostile and without basis in fact in response! Eh? Whaddayasay? 🙂
Well, so to speak, Paul Well’s comments about lemmings have pretty well come home to roost. It’s both funny and sad.
However, returning to the Status of Women crowd, let’s remember the lessons of history. First, and I think this is cronological, remember Lyndon Johnson’s observation about J. Edgar (Silk Stockings) Hoover: It’s better to have him in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.
And, of course, the Godfather: Keep your friends close. And your enemies, closer.
The cost of the Status of Women for the feds is peanuts. Especially after Mulroney. Remember John Crosby’s reference to Judy Ridiculous? Keep them around so you can bash easily and often.