CBC DeProgramming Note

"This is the first time in Canada that the bloggers are having an effect. Our letter went in and the mainstream media weren’t interested until the bloggers took it."

It looks like they forgot about the last election. Even when the MSM tells the truth they have to lie.

I am surprised at the results so far, 60% to continuining the funding and 40% to cut it off.

I am also very surprised that Gwen Landolt would appear on a show run by the sleaze b sleaze that you knew would be rigged with their supporters, that’s the oldest trick in the book.

Give it time. Poll was 75 - 25 a few minutes ago...

And now it's 52 - 48....

Now the vote's neck in neck.

My comment, again, is the deliberate 'hidden agenda' of the Liberals/NDP with their use of the term 'progressive'. This hides the truth of their ideology.

The Liberals/NDP are not progressive; they are regressive. Their ideology is locked into the 19th century era of class antagonism, of gender antagonism, of the debate about assimilation of newcomers.

They have chosen regressive 19th c. statist economic policies of unionization versus the free market, of a centralist top down government with wasteful 'make-work' economies, versus local self-organized entrepreneurship.

They have chosen a distributed economy, despite its being empirically shown as disastrous in the socialist countries. This has resulted in the inability of Canadians to develop an investor population and a resultant necessity to rely on foreign investment.

They have chosen a psychological ideology of gender antagonism and have dealt with it by the privileging of one gender and the vilification of the other.

They have chosen to isolate newcomers within 'identity-groups' and have focused their politics around vote-getting actions of financial and power-appeasements of these groups. This has splintered the country and reduced any notion of a national purpose and identity.

These are regressive, not progressive, actions. They effectively reduce the capacity of Canadians to develop, as individuals, within the economy, within the world.

The Status of Women is a prime example of this regressive ideology. It requires women to function as victims, for its definition of the genders is: women are victims and men are oppressors.

Furthermore, the Status of Women funding does not go to women in need, but goes to pay the salaries and benefits of a host of middle class women bureaucrats. It is a prime example of the regressive economic Make-Work policy of a centralist government.

The hidden agenda is the funding of the jobs of these middle class women, carried out under the veneer of 'helping women as victims'.

P.S. Western Canadian: REAL Women PAY for the CBC like any other taxpayer! Why shouldn't it get its message out any way it can?

Even if the host's hostile and the callers disagree, one can override their message by clearly and unambiguously stating--and restating-- one's own position.

Actually, I've seen REAL Women in action. Often their reasonable tone, politeness, and sensible ideas completely highlight the opposite traits of its opponents. CBC's plans might well backfire: here's hoping!

ET, 11:38 AM, NAILS IT AGAIN. Those Wacky Ideas are, in my opinion, the reason-for-being for;

The Liberal Party of Canada
The Status of Women
The CBC
The United Nations
Muslims of Terrorist Inclination
Hez-B
Al Quaida
One World Governance
TorStar
G&M
Canadian Journalism "schools"
Environment Canada
Charter of Rights
Kyoto Protocol
Criminal Rights over Victims Rights
Trudeau/Suzuki support of Castro
State Day Care support, not SAH Mothers
Soft on Terrorism
Soft on Crime
MSM
MSM polls
UN/Saddam Oil FF Scandal
Mourning the fall of Berlin Wall
Greenpeace

I'm going to go out a big limb here on the topic of comparing the salaries of women versus men. This is just my feeling based on years of observation. I think that the "wage gap" is highly overstated...but, I would concede that, for younger women, it does exist. But, there is an acceptable reason for it.

I work in the software industry. Not web-pages and the like. But, lower-level controls (real engineering). Really talking to the machines. When I was in school, I saw, term after term, classes start with nearly equal numbers of males and females. Usually, by the end of the second semester (out of nine), the proportion of women would invariably be cut by half as many females dropped out or transferred to another course that was more business oriented as opposed to technology. I'm not going to get into the whys of that. But, I am sure that they were not forced or intimidated out.

In my years in the professional world, I have not noticed any differences in the capabilities of the men versus the (comparatively smaller number of) women who stuck it out and made it through. But, I have noticed that the (young) women do tend to start-off at lower salaries (sometimes as much as 20% lower). But, I think there is a good reason for that.

When I was 24, I discovered that, even though I had a perfect driving record (no tickets whatsoever) and had owned a vehicle (fully insured) for 5 years, the car insurance rates for me were exactly the same as they would be for a 19-year old brand new female driver with 2 accidents (each of which resulted in two vehicles being totalled) already under her belt. I found that annoying...maybe even sexist. After all, if it were reversed and 24 year old women with perfect and well-established driving records were being charged the same as 19 year old men with 2 accidents, I think that the feminists would be calling that sexist.

Anyway, of course, there was no way out of me having to pay the higher rates. Statistics, I was told, made it clear that a male under 25 was simply that high of a comparative risk. Understandably, the insurance companies can't develop different rates systems for every individual. So, I was at the mercy of the driving history of those other males who are risks. I had to be punished for the bad judgement of other penis-bearing humans. It was not fair. I might have thought that the statistics didn't "have the right" to be true. But, it is the way things are.

I think that the same analogy can be used for (young) women entering the professional world. When a company hires you (at least in my industry - but I'm sure it's the same in others), they consider your first few years an investment. Let's face it, on your first day of work, you have a lot to learn and get used to. Even though your first paycheque will likely be for the same amount as your paycheque a year from now, you are not worth as much to a company in the first three, six, or maybe even twelve months as you are when you have been there for a few years.

Companies realize that, until you are fully up to speed, they will actually lose some money on you (i.e. your salary is, for a time, more than what they are getting out of you in value).

Now, like it or not, women of child-bearing years are far more likely to need substantial amounts of time off than men of the same age because of the possibility of them having children. In the event that a woman has a child, they might take a few months off. It might be a year. They may never come back. In my experience, I have seen several take time off and then come back to work part-time.

No one villifies them for this. But, it is understandable why a company might not be willing to invest as much in an employee with whom this is a likely outcome.

Now, I know that not all women (especially career women) have children or even get married nowadays. But, that doesn't change the statistical likelihood. Just like in my car insurance example, I was not one of those hot-rodding males who that that burning rubber and street racing were cool. But, I was still subject to restrictions based on what the (apparent) young men are like. For women in the work-force, it is the same. It might not seem fair...but it is the way it is.

Now, please note that I have gone to great pains here to stress that I acknowledge a gap between men and "young" women or women "of child-bearing" years. This is because, when women get past the child-bearing age (either with or without children), in my industry, there is virtually no salary gap at all. When it comes to management and administration of the company (where usually the "more mature" people are posted), I would say that there are almost as many women as men (my guess would be 60% men to 40% women). I have worked for five companies in my career so far. Two of them had women CEO's and I have never worked in a single situation where I didn't answer to at least one woman in my "chain-of-command".

I guess all I'm saying is that there are reasonable reasons for a salary gap in early career years. And that gap disappears once the "child-risk" years are passed. So, I don't see what all of the hullaballoo is about.

By the way, the successful women I have met in my career don't seem to be upset about this reality. Rather than try to tear down the business world as being "inherently paternalistic", they accept, study, and come to master the business world and then they take it by the horns. In other words, they act like conservatives. They don't complain about "obstacles" being unfair. They simply take them on and win.

This is just what I have seen experienced and heard from my colleagues out there. Feel free to attack me for sexist rationalization if you like.

Kate:

Please. I'm in stitches, I need to know how you voted. I just can't figure it out.

What gives ?? In Greg Weston's article
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2006/08/27/1779347-sun.html

it seems that Canadians largely support PM Harpers policies. But many still lean to the Liberals, even though they do not agree with ADScam, soft on crime, terrorists ect. What gives ?? Simple. Th habit of being familiar with a name does not die easily. It takes time. We kept on buying Fords for decades, not be cause they were the best, which they are not, but the "let me see, I think I will buy a,.. a,.. FORD" !! Familiar with it. Also familiar with the troubles, but that's ok. Ford management did not have to deal/create a better product. But it has, as it always will, come home to roost and now Ford is in big, BIG trouble.

"the extreme right-wing blog Free Republic" is/are the culprit(s). CAW...CAW...CAW...

Our poll on the SWC and funding has been "freeped"
For those who dont know, "freeping" is the act of directing members to massively vote in online polls to tilt their outcome to the desired answer they want; an act started by the extreme right-wing blog Free Republic. It appears we've had the same thing happen here....-

CAW...CAW...CAW...

Lookout - you havwe a point. Noted.

You've been outed, Kate, by Progressive Blogger...not by name but by association with conservatives. Progressive Blogger has posted that they're online poll been "Freeped" by conservatives.

All hail Kate and her army of conservative winged monkeys (or is that lemmings?)!

bryceman - very good analysis. Many thanks.

The reality is, that younger women must take 'time off' to have children. The reality is, that women bear the children in our species and no amount of verbal dithering can change that. Statistically, our species must have a certain proportion of women as reproductive, or, the species dies out.

So the economic participation of the genders can be economically equal, if you consider that bearing the next generation can be considered an economic action - and in many non-industrial societies, it is considered an economic action. But the economic participation is not identical. The radical feminists consider that participation must be identical - there must be as many women in parl't as men; as many CEOs as men.

Identical statistics is trivial statistics. To equate a box of pirated CDs of low quality with a box of high quality CDs because there are 25 in each set is trivial.

No way, bryceman--that I'll attack you! What you've said makes perfect sense.

As BATB has said, the main reason for the wage gap in the professions and other time consuming pursuits--like being an MP or truck driver (do the feminists ever quibble about truck driving?) is that women have other priorities, usually spending more time with their families. E.g., I know a few double-doctor-lawyer families: In all cases, and not because she's less capable, the female has been a generalist and taken time off and/or has worked part-time in order to satisfy the needs of her family AND her own and her husband's desire that she spend more time with their children. On the other hand, the husbands, for the good of their families, have been specialists who have worked long hours and made the big $$. (Although I'd have no problem if the gender divide worked the other way and the dad spent more time at home, it never does: funny that. Of course, in other families, often the dad does spend more time with the kids. Now we're hearing that this seems to be a problem a lot of the time. Hmmm . . . Could it be that the sexes actually have different needs and aspirations?)

It's the feminists who try to box women in. Not all of us WANT to spend more than half our lives away from our families. The "discriminatory" wage gap is largely fiction. Remove marriage and kids--"Oh, those small considerations," the feminists say--and, in general, there is no wage gap. (There are statistics proving this.)

That's why the feminists are so hell bent on doing away with the kids (abortion's a right and no problem and so should be state-funded, full-time child care) and marriage. (All the statistics show that marriage actually promotes and protects the well-being of women and their children.) What losers the official feminists are--liars too--and they're taking down with them all those who are unenlightened enough to go along with their myths and scams. (Unfortunately, this includes most of the public and a few other institutions, e.g., the Anglican and United [untied?] Churches.)

(BTW, REAL Women has been saying just this for over 25 years. [Check out their website.] And what have they received in the public square for being a voice of reason and truth, lobbying for government programs that fit the needs and aspirations of the average [real] Canadian woman? Derision and ridicule, that's what, especially by the MSM, which has treated REAL with the utmost contempt. [So have most governments.] It's really good to see this debate finally get a wider airing. Yeah, the blogosphere!!)

Mothers can never be paid what they are worth. Chefs, Housekeepers, Nurses, Teachers..... all 24/7. We owe the much.

Hey, what happened to the poll at Progressive (sic) Bloggers? Last time I looked, it was 67% in favour of defunding SOW and only 32% in favour of funding it.

I just checked again. The poll's disappeared altogether. Sore losers?

Western Canadian, thanks;-)

Lookout: I had posted a comment before that got caught in the filter. There is a posting on Progressive Bloggers that notes that they've been "freeped"...that is, conservatives have been "directed there" by "someone" to skew the results of the poll. Hmmm...how could that have happened? Too funny!

lookout:

Yeah, it's gone, replaced with a couple of threads along saying they'd been "freeped", and complaints that "non-progressive" bloggers have been voting in the poll.

I would suggest that if they only want "progressive" bloggers to vote in their polls they should make the polls members only?

ET - bang on, my thoughts exactly. Very discouraging, IMHO, that it's gotten this far and no end in sight, but at least awareness is increasing. Thanks.

Hassle:

Ya beat me to it.

Gee, isn't it too bad this is a "free" country? (But never, as we've just witnessed, when the "progressives" are in charge!)

And a "members only" vote would be redundant: We already know what they'd vote. So why would one bother? (Except to prove one's--illusory--superiority.)

What a bunch of toddler, cry baby, totalitarian losers, hoist on their own petard.

Absolutely lovely is all I can say! ;-)

hmmph.

instead of cutting off participation, why doesnt that guy simply allow the pro-sow types to use the same tactic?

or maybe the 'skewed' results are in fact a true representation of the wider view.....

and I resent being lumped in as part of the Kate cult....

interesting the voting was suspended when cessation of funding was the majority opinion. does this mean sow is getting the axe?

Ahh, fascinating. Again, the Regressives show their true nature. You either agree with them or you are 'unCanadian'. Dissent is not allowed.

They set up a poll, they ask for the opinions of the public, they enable both a 'yes' and 'no response. But, only one response is permissable. As soon as 'the Other' response emerges, the question is immediately shut down and the responses of the Other Side are defined as invalid. That's democracy according to the Liberals/NDP.

The Regressives assert that if you vote to stop funding SOW, then, your opinion is unacceptable.

They further claim that any such votes in their poll are due to a 'planned campaign of the conservatives'. Is this really true? How do they provide us with proof of such a scheme?

Or is the truth the fact that the Liberals/NDP Regressive Party refuses to allow Canadians to make their own conclusions. People must, as they did and do in all socialist/communist/fascist regimes, 'toe the Party Line'. Any other view is inadmissable.

Go Kate!

"The regressive chauvinists (as someone put it last week) "just had their ass handed to them by a girl."

Way too funny. You do raise a good point though; the Progressive Bloggers "management" are all male and the "Progressive" blogroll is overwhelmingly male. Who are they to tell a (successful) female blogger and her substantially female readership anything in this matter? I don't even think PBs even like girls.

As for allegations of "freeping", ProgBloggers runs crooked, unverifiable web polls every day; one cannot fix a vote that is crooked to begin with. Same goes for Calgary Grit's crooked polls; they deserve to be "freeped" because they are dishonest by design.

Interesting, Bob.

Sorry for the quibble, but I question your idea about Kate's "substantially female readership". It seems to me that LOTS of her clientele is male.

lookout said at 1:50 p.m. today: "The poll's [at progressive bloggers] disappeared altogether."

I went on a few minutes ago, for the first time, and pushed a VOTE button, thinking I'd get a window which would allow me a choice as to how I could vote, but no such thing happened.

'Next think I know, there's a big red check mark in the vote box, and it looks like I've voted, alright, but on what side? I was never given a choice.

Hmmm...are they still taking votes, but only allowing votes on one side of this issue? I have a bad feeling that I voted to continue the SOW funding. So, for the record:

I JUST VOTED OVER AT PROGRESSIVE [SAYS WHO?] BLOGGERS, BUT WAS GIVEN NO CHOICE OF WHICH SIDE I COULD VOTE FOR. I AM DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY AGAINST FURTHER FUNDING FOR THE SOW. LET THEM PAY FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA. THE REST OF US HAVE TO.

Any progressive bloggers around? Subtract one vote from the "continue funds" side. That would be mine, because I wasn't given a choice.

That's really progressive of you.

So, apparently SDA has been accused of "fixing" the poll against their desired outcome.

Apparently they think this shows that we have nothing better to do on Sunday morning. The fallacies of that supposed insult are just too obvious and too numerous to go through.

I don't get it. Can't they just send out an appeal to everyone on their side while the conservative blogs to the same and see which one comes out the winner?

Oh...silly me. That would expose the fact that those with conservative views outnumber them. They just can't win can they? Everything is against them...even the people of this country (in a "fixed" sort of way, of course).

Kate:

Why don't you open up the exact same poll and invite the "progressives" over to rock the vote on your poll? Tell them its their big chance to show us (is it "neo-cons"?) what it feels like.

What I found funniest is that you blinked YES so SDA readers would know what to vote without reading the question ;-)

Just pulling your leg.

The truth of the matter is that the liberanos are losing support everywhere and they couldn't muster enough votes for the spend more money side.

More squealing over at Angry in the Great White North about "gender inequality." I posted this response to a feminist blogger's complaint:

Begin quote *********

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, 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.

End quote*********

Most women accept certain limitations, because we understand that men also are limited in ways that we aren't. Give and take, share and share alike. That's the answer to our living together, not the SOW's inequality agenda.

:) you kick ass, Kate!

Female Progressive Blogger here.

Wouldn't it be more productive to stick to a discussion of the ways that things could be improved for women (and men) in this country, rather than always digressing into left-right hatred?

REAL women of Canada argue that women are equal. Yet, I just read the group's position on child care that argues that they want the role of mothers to be valued. Face it - women and, in particluar, mothers aren't valued in our society.

Calling a group "REAL" women only serves to distance those women who may have differing views. What would be REALly good is if women decided to stop attacking each other and began articulating goals and finding common ground.

Expect Bev Oda to do the right thing! She has the background and the common sense to go with it. We all have to get "real". SOW's, pigs at the trough, we can no longer pay for them, they don't represent mainstream women. Special interest groups should not be funded from the public purse, they can do or die on their own dime.
Men, women, different but equal, just the way God made us. Every family can figure out who is best suited to any task in their particular unit, don't need wacknuts screaming their alternate agenda. Strange way to show respect for their fathers and brothers and males in their families.

Hey, what happened to the poll at Progressive (sic) Bloggers? Last time I looked, it was 67% in favour of defunding SOW and only 32% in favour of funding it.

Lookout - Most online polls have a cookie mechanism that if left unaltered on your computer restricts repetitive voting. I've often wondered, when I see a suspicious change in these online polls, if the nimble minions with a vested interest in a desired outcome disable the cookie on their computer from the poll site. Easy to do. Makes it easy to swarm the site when you don't like the score as it progresses.

Since cookies can be deleted repeatedly or not accepted at all, I stand by my suspicions.

Oh, sure, you can say, but, the conservatives probably do it as well. Right. But, the demographics of who is more computer savvy leans toward a much younger and liberal crowd.

"All hail Kate and her army of conservative winged monkeys (or is that lemmings?)!"

We're actually Lemurs, and I'm a monkey's uncle.

Maria Minna, the Liberal Minister of/for the Tamil Tigers Suicide Squads and Liberal MP for Beaches-East York, Ont.

Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Conservatives Must Come Clean on Agenda for Status of Women Canada
August 25, 2006
OTTAWA – Liberal Critic for Status of Women and Multiculturalism Maria Minna today called on Heritage Minister Bev Oda to reveal the Conservative government’s true intentions for the future of Status of Women Canada. ...- lib.ca

Dining with terrorists
Dining with terrorists, Tamil Tigers, Maria Minna, Paul Martin, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Sri Lanka, anti-american, fundraising.
www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover011005.htm - 32k -

Tamil Tigers impress Canadian parliamentary delegation
Maria Minna says that the Tamil Tigers left an impression on her by figuring global warming into their plans for the construction of a sea wall to protect ...
www.tamileelamnews.com/news/publish/printer_4187.shtml - 8k - 26 Aug 2006 -

Right on BATB - I come from a family with a strong matriarchal tradition. The old rule was "When a man and woman mary, she takes his name, but he takes everything else of hers - religion, family traditions, etc." The (admittedly old-fashioned) belief was that children instinctively look to their mother to be an example of what is "socially correct." From toilet training to being in a formal setting. Thus, women have the real power...since even their sons learn these rules from their mother.

My paternal grandmother (may she rest in peace) believed that feminism was not created to advance the position of women...but instead to advance the position of women who weren't married. The feeling was that the relationship between a husband and wife was kind of like that of a monarch and prime minister. The husband (like the king or queen) is the figurehead and, to the outside world looks like the head of state. But, the real power lies with the wife (the prime minister). And there's no way that the monarch will ever refute the position of the prime minister.

One of my favorite quotes from my grandmother was, "George Washington may be the guy who is talked about in the history books. But, everyone knows that, when home at night, he was asking, 'What should I do, Martha?'"

Polly - you seem to be a sincere person who believes in what you say. What I don't agree with is that anything needs to be done to "improve" the situation for women in this society. If you can show me one area of our society where women don't have the same opportunity as men, then I will be on board with your quest to change that (unless you want to lobby for women in the boxing ring against men).

But, if your position is that the result or outcome is not always equal among people of different genders...then that is where I can't get on board. Men will always be prominent in careers like firefighting because their inherent physical strength makes them more adept at carrying people out of a burning building. The average man is more likely than his female counterpart to be able to lift 1.5 times his weight over his shoulder. If you feel that this trait is sexist...then, all I can say is, testosterone is completely ignorant when it comes to political sensitivities. It comes that way from the womb. Blame it on a defect at the factory.

As I said earlier in this post, the number of women in the engineering field is lower than that of men. But, I have seen far more women decide that the field simply wasn't for them.

A few years ago, I was watching a special on 60 Minutes. They told the story of how, in the mid 90's someone figured out that, in US law enforcement (from Sheriff's departments, to city police services, to the FBI), Jews made up less than 0.1%. This started a whole bunch of talk about how US law-enforcement may have an anti-semitic under-belly. Turns out that not many Jews apply for law enforcement positions. But, if you take the numbers that do apply and compare it to those who make it through...they were not under-represented at all. But, people were ready to start being "activists" over this because the "result" was not equal as opposed to the "opportunity."

Lower numbers in a particular field does not necessarily indicate inequality of opportunity. Thus, I am opposed to my tax dollars funding a "fix" for a "problem" that may not (and probably does not) exist.

Polly, you wrote, "What would be REALly good is if women decided to stop attacking each other and began articulating goals and finding common ground." That's hard to do, Polly, when those with the political clout and all the government $$ refuse to be inclusive and share.

The government funded feminists have always rejected REAL Women and treated them in the most disrespectful and discriminatory way. Perhaps you could write the SOW and ask them to be more inclusive.

You also wrote, "REAL women of Canada argue that women are equal. Yet, I just read the group's position on child care that argues that they want the role of mothers to be valued. Face it - women and, in particluar, mothers aren't valued in our society." So . . . obviously REAL Women has a valid point. They've been lobbying for decades to give stay at home moms--I wasn't one (unfortunately), BTW--equal value re government $, as moms who go out to work. The government funded feminists ignore the value of at-home moms altogether. How can this be interpreted as equality or fairness? Perhaps you could write the SOW and ask them to be more inclusive.

You say you're "progressive". How does that fit with the narrow agenda of feminist women, who denigrate the ideas of any women with whom they disagree, while also saying these women are against equality and hogging all the government funds? Perhaps, being a progressive, you could write the SOW and ask them to be more inclusive.

The exclusive and exclusionary "Old Boys", whose modus operandi the feminists have adopted, would be quite proud of the feminists' power grab. Ironic, eh? Perhaps . . .

"We're actually Lemurs, and I'm a monkey's uncle."

Does that mean you believe in evolution?

Just buggin'.

Pam says:

"Most of us 1970s feminists are grandmothers now. Lifelong socialist and humanist that I am, if fighting to prevent the possibility that my granddaughters - our granddaughters - will one day be forced to wear a burka makes me right-wing, then right-wing is the label I'll have to wear."

Pamela Bone: Muslim sisters need our help

If she is dubbed right-wing for expressing solidarity with women in Islamic countries, the author doesn't mind wearing the label
August 25, 2006

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."

Another old feminist, Phyllis Chesler (she is my age, so I may call her old), is the author of The Death of Feminism, published last year. In her book, Chesler, who lived in Afghanistan for a time before she managed to flee the country and her Afghan husband, wrote: "I fear that the 'peace and love' crowd in the West refuses to understand how Islamism endangers our values and our lives, beginning with our commitment to women's rights and human rights."

Feminism is not quite dead, however. The execution of Kolhari was stopped after a petition gathered thousands of signatures from human rights activists in Iran and across the world, including more than 5000 from the Feminist Majority Foundation in the US.

Yet in Canada it took an Iranian exile, Homa Arjomand, to lead the fight to stop sharia courts being established there; she did so with almost zero support from Anglo-Canadian feminists and academics. Named Canadian Humanist of the Year, she's now running a campaign to stop honour killings. In Canada? "In Canada we are not witnessing honour killing much simply because in Canada women and young girls who are not submissive are taken to their home countries such as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Nigeria, and there they are being murdered by the male member of the family or a hit man," Arjomand said in a speech earlier this year. "And the (Canadian) state is not obligated to protect the individual citizens who were forced to leave Canada by the head of the family." ...-
http://www.voy.com/178771/29589.html

I said that I was a member of Progressive Bloggers - "progressive" is a highly subjective term.

REAL woman of Canada absolutely has a valid point. Even those who termed themselves as maternal or difference feminists have been ignored by the government for a long time. I have always considered myself a liberal feminist, but recently, I have begun to wonder how much the government supports my equality because of a committment to justice...I suspect that many of the gains for women have fit nicely with liberal economic goals.

But, it is ridiculous to pretend that there are not equality issues for women. And, most certainly, there are gender issues for men too. But, the approach from REAL women seems hostile. As a feminist, I have always been accused of being a man-hater. So, can I just not flip the rhetoric and say that REAL women are just crazy feminist-haters and liberal-haters.

Surely, the left and right can find some dialogue about gender and family issues that is more along the lines of adults conversing than little kids pouting and wailing.

Polly:

No one here is calling you a man-hater. You are not being treated with disrespect. I don't doubt for a second that you have sincere beliefs. They are not along the same lines as most of those who hang out here. But, that does not mean that you are not welcome to share your point of view.

If you want to start bringing people together and fostering a sense of understanding...then we can attempt to begin that understanding now.

Just now, you said "But, it is ridiculous to pretend that there are not equality issues for women."

Let's start there. If you would kindly refer to my last post which was half addressed to you, I say that I don't agree with this assertion...if you mean that there is a lack of "equal opportunity" for women.

If you can give me some examples of professions or fields of study where women don't have the same opportunities as men, then I will hear you and agree that such a situation represents an injustice. I'm not sure if I will necessarily agree that there is a cause for government-sponsored activist organizations about it. But, I would support asking for a change if women are being denied enty into some field of interest.

But, if your claim runs along the Sheila Copps-style argument that "Women in Canada are not equal because the number of people in the field of [insert industry name here] are not 50% female", then we won't be able to find that common ground.

Sure, let's come together. Point out the injustices and we can indeed discuss them.

Polly...please clarify "The approach from Real Women seems hostile"...where are you getting that idea? If Gwen Landolt is being assertive(which she is very capable of) it can hardly be interpreted as 'hostile'.The pouting and wailing is characteristic of the feminist in SoW that want to perpetuate the myth that the woman is a victim, and they don't want to see the end of their gravy train.BTW did Kate need special trainung or a grant thru SoW to handle Paul Wells the way she did? ....didn't think so...

Such silly arguments, I am head of my household, and I have my wife's permission to say so :-)

I remember being in the Canadian forces when they opened up a bunch of trades to females to enrole. As bryceman pointed out there were not the same amount of females applying for these technical trades and not all stayed but overall they were as capable as anyone else. I worked for some and had some work for me and there isn't any difference in the long run.

I was also around when they tried to open up the combat arms trades to women, you know infantry, artillary and the like. Trouble was they didn't get all that many volunteers. The social engineers up top then interviewed about every female in the forces and offered "enducements" to transfer. That didn't work either. Needless to say the female desk-flying colonel in Ottawa in charge of this was not happy. Another government paid social experiment.

Polly, you are so representative of your cause which means that those of us outside of your feminist group are having trouble here following whatever the hell you are talking about.

I have begun to wonder how much the government supports my equality because of a committment to justice.......??????? I'm trying, but it isn't coming to me.

....it is ridiculous to pretend that there are not equality issues for women. And, most certainly, there are gender issues for men too......OK, Polly, but where's the militant men's group sucking off government funding and playing the victim's gig? Any classes or studies on campus looking at men's issues? You really think your feminist harpies want to see that take hold?

Poor Polly, what you can't understand is that the vast majority of women ignore your muddled and basically low self-esteem feminist view. We are moms, wives, valued employees by merit not gender, quietly going about our lives without the sniveling victim gaming. Why? Because the vast majority of us aren't victims unless we made bad choices and take individual responsibility for that. Not the fault of men. Not the fault of our government.

The coinage of "gender and family issues" is grating and vacuous. So dated. So feminist sheeple. It belongs in the realm of flakes that haven't a real life, no offense.