Status Of Women

The single most important person in the history of female rights was James Clerk Maxwell.

Status of Women Canada is a threat to boys. I've been in the gender politics game long enough to know who oppose human rights and who are willing to talk ... SOW do not talk, they scream and threaten.

BTW: Parking spaces are a pet peeve for me. I'm not disabled enough to need a disabled permit. BUT, I do use a cane and have a fair bit of trouble walking, some days a LOT of trouble. Yet, it is the pregnant women and women with children in their car who get the front spaces. Hah! They walk a lot better & easier than I do ...

I remember years ago Jim and I arriving at Queen's Park to talk to Bill Davis about rights for fathers with custody. I had two babies with me and Jim three, the youngest with CerabalPalsey. The special public spots were ONLY for women with children: Which was part of the whole point of the meeting!

I doubt there is an easy solution to it.

To those leftists/moonbats/"feminists" who inexplicably believe that being female means that one is somehow "disabled":

Get to know Kate. See what she's accomplished on her own, from the bottom rung up. See that she can take care of herself, no problem whatsoever. Is that "disabled"? Absolutely not.

In fact, at this point in time, I, as a man, can't hold a candle to Kate. In fact, she inspires me to work harder to succeed in my endeavors and to want more out of life. She's a refreshing change from the leftist-feminist culture of defeat.

So it should come as no surprise that I see no need for the existence of special-interest groups which push the lie that women are somehow "lesser" than men and therefore need all sorts of preferential treatment in everything. Certainly they have no business taking money from the taxpayers to do this! Why should tax dollars be used by "activist" idiots to go around telling women that there's something wrong with being a woman?

We're supposed to be equal according the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not that we need some piece of paper to tell us what we intelligent folks already know from reality.

Can't resist a partisan shot: the leftist political parties like to tell women that they need special treatment from the state as doing so has tended to manipulate many women into voting for those leftist parties. So so-called "progressives" have an electoral interest in telling women that they're "disadvantaged" just for being women. And that's plainly wrong!

Too little, too late. A bi-annual posting midly questioning feminism does not a conservative (or even a libertarian) make.

How about a parking spot for old guys with bladder/prostate issues?

This space reserved for Pregnant. It's a no-brainer, womens's libberation. Martha opines while perched... Hedy pulls on an Imelda Marcos au pair, red Gucci? How many au pairs in her closet? ... ...-

Hedy, Fry, Scarfy Scotty, and Co-Liberishes: Gripe, gripe, grits...-

At one point, the candidates were asked to give one-word answers to a series of questions. One light-hearted question asked: If a tie is a man's trademark, what is a woman's trademark?

"Not a short skirt on a stool," opined Hall Findlay, who was in fact clad in a short skirt and perched on a stool.

Brison suggested a fancy scarf, Fry opted for shoes and Rae suggested: "Her smile."

At least one female MP griped later that none of the candidates thought to mention a woman's brain.
cnews

I have long held that these "feminist" organizations do NOT speak for me. I have watched as these femme-nazi's have railed against anything male and it disgusts me.

Men and Women are equal but in different ways - this is by virtue of our genetic makeup and to demand law and money to prove otherwise is a joke

Kate - you are right - in this country the average woman does not need her "status" protected. There are women who need a helping hand and there are agencies for those women.

Maybe these organizations should head over to Afganistan or Iraq or Timbuktu and talk to those trying to truly keep women down.

I have long believed that SOW is just one of the many lefty, special interest groups set up by the Liberals in order to hand out money to specific sectors of society, or "communities" in PC jargon, to ensure their vote.

Time to end it and the many others. No taxpayer money for political advocacy groups.

I'm weighing in with something I posted at Great White North yesterday, when Steve proposed scrapping the Status of Women. A Canadian women's group, which has always seen men as equal partners, especially concerning the family, is REAL Women, started by Gwen Landolt, lawyer, wife, mother and grandmother, and still going strong in REAL! This group, which views the world very differently from the man-hating, child-distancing radical--often lesbian--feminists, has sustained itself on donations and has had not a penny from the government in ages. Almost all the millions go to angry, disaffected women whose groups wouldn't exist for 10 minutes away from the public trough.

Here's what I said:

"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 [as one poster had suggested as the most important thing to dismantling their stranglehold] isn’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."

If the Conservatives ever get a majority, removing funding from ALL special interest groups, who use their governmemnt $$ to lobby that same government--cozy little arrangement, eh?--should be very high on their agenda. Cutting off radical groups' funding didn't happen with the Mulroney Conservatives. But PMSH and his crowd are cut from different cloth, so we can wish--and, on our own dime, LOBBY them to JUST DO IT!!

What ever happened to NACSOW, a wonderful organisation dedicated to keeping men in their place? Suddenly they've become SOW? I miss the "National Action" part, it sounded so....vibrant!

Kate, you can get testerone supplements at your pharmacy, it might help you become more docile and subservient.

Liberated thoughts from that great feminist, Tequila Sheila:
www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Copps_Sheila/2006/08/23/1770600.html

"Eureka! Officials have finally located the weapons of mass destruction.

Only Saddam Hussein wasn't hiding them.

It was I. Mascara, eyeliner and anti-feathering cream.

Okay, I admit it. I was stupid, dumb and ignorant when I pitched a makeup kit into my carry-on bag at 6 a.m. in preparation for an early-morning flight...

I had completely forgotten about another tiny tube of emollient, designed to save older women from the embarrassment of "bleeding" lipstick. I tried to explain this life-altering need to a patient security officer but she would have none of it.

Woman-to-woman, she might have understood that abandoning a 53-year-old on a flight without lip cream could provoke instant air rage. As the perils of menopause mitigate my natural beauty, they include a distinct thinning of the lips. When I was in politics, people thought I was angry. They didn't understand the post-estrogen second half of life can wreak havoc on a woman's face..."

My heart bleeds.

Mark
Ottawa

Feminism got hijacked by academic radicals on the far left, mired in that quagmire called "postmodernism", where white males were the cause of all oppression in the world, and rationality, democracy, civil rights, and free enterprize were regularly denounced as "tools of the oppressor".

The logic has become so perverted that anyone supporting equal opportunity is labelled a reactionary bigot. No, you must now discriminate in favour of certain groups, which is so much better than discriminating against others. Testosterone good, estrogen better.

It's no wonder that the word "feminist" is now often used as insult.

NAC is another entity. It's now on its own. SoW is a federal agency that funds women's groups and policy research and makes sure the federal bureaucracy tows the feminist line.

Axe all tax giveaways to special interest lobby groups. There should be not one penny going to fund lobbyists and activists of any sort.

It's high time these social parasites got productive jobs in the private sector and stopped sucking off the taxpayer's teat.

I'm sick of having half of society leaching off the rest of us. Let them starve if they can't be bothered to do something useful.

To the question "If a tie is a man's trademark, what is a woman's trademark?...[someone said] none of the candidates thought to mention a woman's brain" (courtesy of maz2).

And because of the rabidly feminazi SoW(s), who not only outlawed motherhood but knocked mom down and stomped on her, no woman answered "my children." It's become verboten for a woman to in any way identify herself by anyone in her family, "I am John's wife; or I am Suzie's mom."

GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE, YOU DINOSAUR (or should that be dinosaureuse?).

There is no question—at least there never has been in my mind: I come from a long line of matriarchs—I’m a person in my own right, but what’s wrong with being happy and proud of also being someone’s wife or mother? After all, these are CHOICES I’ve made, “choice” being a buzzword of the radical feminists.

The one thing Canada needs to do, if it does nothing else, to help our disaffected children who in epidemic numbers are smoking up, doing hard drugs, having risky sex, dropping out of school, becoming increasing unruly in at home, school, and in public, committing suicide, is to support and encourage the now-quaint idea of parenthood, and I'm talking specifically here of motherhood.

'Talk about being treated like a nobody back in the '80s when my husband and I made the tough--never to be regretted--decision that I would be a mom of stay-at-home kids. It didn't happen once, it happened on a regular basis: I'm at a party and I’m talking to a woman who “works outside the home.” Inevitably, the question arises, “And what do you do.” To her “I’m a lawyer, teacher, accountant, whatever,” I say, “I stay home to care for my children.” The “working mom’s” eyes immediately glaze over and she looks for someone else in the room to talk to.

It happened all the time.

Things have got marginally better and the CPC $100/month/child support, families who want to have stay-at-home, as opposed to daycare, kids are getting a leg-up that I wish my family had had. It’s a step in the right direction, and an admission by the CPC that all moms and all kids are equal.

SoW was a number-one reason why being a mom became synonymous with no brain, and it’s a crying shame, mostly for our children.

Status Of Women. as in SOW. as in sow. as in a bloated female pig grunting, squealing and eating all day long thinking only of what IT wants.....

RobertJ, you're SOW right! (Sorry!)

I may be naive but women can be elected as easily as men. However, only a few select women are prepared to put up with the petty politics and the grind of a politician's life. They have more important things to do with their lives than argue with that used car salesman Jack Layton or silly Bill Graham and his merry band of thieves about whether to support terrorists or not. While politics maybe an old boys game the old boys are rapidly fading from the scene and it is time for the younger generation including women to pick up the mantle. However, we don't need affirmative action programs to help women. They are quite capable on their own if they choose to make politics their career.

"Axe all tax giveaways to special interest lobby groups"
Hear hear. Start with religious organizations and corporate entities. Their financial dependence dwarfs feminists’ organizations, the CBC and myriad other favoured targets of the regressives, and they effect much more social harm.

let me tell u one example of how they help women{not}..i am the father of 3 daughters...in the 90's i was employed as a utility lineman...new equity law comes down..i am replaced by a female cuz of my low seniority...now my 3 daughters have no primary wage earner....feminazi's...my daughters thank you

The really stupid thing about the "not enough women in parliament" argument is the assumption that women can't get elected because they're women.

This assumes that people would vote for another party just because their party ran a women candidate.

I can guarantee you that I would not vote for a Lib or Dipper candidate just because they ran a man and the CPC ran a woman. In fact, I'd still vote for the CPC if they ran a fricken goat knowing that a goat would still be a better candidate than anything the left would run.

If women think there should be more women in parliament, those who think so should run.

Joebaloni,

I'm with you on axing corporate subsidies too.

Religious groups get no subsidies so this is moot.

You clearly do not see the difference between not paying tax and being given someone else's tax money. There is a difference.

I am in favour of tax deductions for charitable organizations including religious organization (and I'm an athiest myself.)

If NAC/SoW want to fund themselves with donations from supports and set themselves up as a registered charity (subject to the same rules as every other charity,) I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that taxes paid to government are re-directed to a special interest group. The government has no business giving someone my money. If I want to direct my money to an organization, I'll give it to them myself. You and everyone else should have this same choice.

Only a lefty would fail to comprehend this simple logic.

Warwick said, "If NAC/SoW want to fund themselves with donations from supports and set themselves up as a registered charity (subject to the same rules as every other charity,) I have no problem with that."

I totally agree.

But NAC/SoW are terrified of not being able to suck at the government teat. They know that if they were left to their own devices--meaning, being financially supported by Canadians who agree with their agenda--they'd be in business for about a week.

NAC/SoW does not have the support of the majority of Canadian women, let alone men, and they rely on first, most Canadians not having a clue about their anti-men/pro-lesbian/female-supremacy agenda, and then, on browbeating the government into accepting that women are "victims" (sic) and are therefore deserving of taxpayer largesse.

Under the Librano$ this was an easy sell, but hopefully, once the CPC have a majority government this NAC/SoW fleecing of the Canadian public will be stopped. The CPC can't do much about it until they have a majority. There will be much knashing of teeth in SoWville...

There are no misowginists in Islam. Just the arms of Miss Allah; She loves you.

Listen to the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal...(Arms). ...-

PAKISTAN: RELIGIOUS PARTIES UP IN ARMS OVER WOMEN'S RIGHTS BILL

AKI ^ | Aug-23-2006
Islamabad, 22 August (AKI/DAWN) - The government of Pakistan seeking to pass a Protection of Women Rights Bill met fierce resistance from its opponents when it was tabled in parliament and later referred to an all-party select committee for scrutiny. The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) alliance of six Islamic parties rejected the bill as "un-Islamic", vowing on Monday to resist it inside and outside parliament and many of its members tore up copies of the draft bill after it was introduced in the house by Pakistan's law and justice minister Mohammad Wasi Zafar. The MMA staged a token walk-out in protest... ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688674/posts

Just to reiterate: NAC is not part of the discussion. They are privately funded. SOW is a totally different agency. I realize there can be confusion.

If you look on my sitemeter, you'll see a bunch of LiveJournal referrals to my post. They're all in a tizzy over this blogpost, but the link to my post is in some private viewing area. They are mad.

It's interesting: I believe that many groups on the right, like right to life groups, which lobby the government, are not allowed to give tax deductions for donations to them. However, I believe many lefty lobby groups, including feminist ones, are allowed to. Does anyone have info on this? A glaring double standard wouldn't surprise me in the least.

The unholy alliance of the Liberal Party and radical feminists--all they want is power and supremacy, not equity--which is alive and well at the CBC, needs to continue to be exposed and then broken. The latest "outing" of CBC bias, which was actually acknowledged--sort of--by the CBC is a first. Let's hope this chink in the armour of the Liberal created Frankenstein continues to get bigger.

Suzanne, I beg to differ but NAC is and always has been at the public teat. They even write about the cuts in government grants in their web site (under Herstory, yech). I remember this well because for a while their presidents/leaders were quite political and were very dismissive of REAL Women, partially because REAL supported things like stay-at-home moms, gasp!

Thanks Kate for this posting. I have been trying for more than 20 years to convince the various governments that the Status of Women should not be taxpayer funded because it excludes all those women (like me) who disagree with the feminist agenda. They preach "equality" but their agenda excludes all pro-life, pro-traditional family women. It surprises and disappoints me that Stephen Harper continues to maintain a cabinet portfolio called the Status of Women with Bev Oda the Minister in Charge. Why?

SUZANNE, re NAC's funding, I beg to differ:

From the NAC website, I quote, "Once funded almost 100% by the federal government, NAC now raises all of its operating funds through membership fees, donations, PROJECT GRANTS and special events." (emphasis mine)

Now where do you think those project grants come from? BINGO! The government. I'd be very interested to have an accounting of how many grants, for what, and how much NAC has received. Feminist groups have been known to write up projects which end up paying for running their offices! NAC's not government funded? Not on your life!

NAC's certainly part of the special status and equity discussion. It plays the victim card all the time. In fact, it's now so outside the mainstream, most women wouldn't recognize their concerns at a NAC get-together (if they ever would have).

Equality? Check out their member groups and executive. Not very inclusive, unless lesbians and women of colour represent most of us. At least NAC now styles itself a "feminist" group, with all the victim status, get-out-of-the-home-and-warehouse- your-kids-in-government-funded-institutionasl- childcare, we-don't-like-men, and all the other divisive attitudes that implies. As such, NAC represents very few actual women in Canada. E.g., NAC used to--maybe still does--include all the female, non Catholic, publc school, elementary teachers in Ontario. Did the teachers know this? Not most of them. Did they agree with NAC's agenda? Who knows? NAC never asked them. And, on NAC's present website, under "Regional Representatives", there are only 4 spaces filled out of 19: The rest are vacant. Considering, apparently, that reps are no longer slurping at the public trough, this is no surprise. But if NAC can't field more than a fifth of its regional reps, just how representative is it?

NAC never was representative of Canadian women and it still isn't. It should receive not even a penny from the public purse.

Kathleen. I'm with you!

Re your question: A: The Conservatives have a minority government. If this government tried to eradicate a major source of the feminists' income and power, all hell would break loose.

Do women who care about this stuff vote Conservative? Would they vote Liberal and put a Liberal government in power if it did?

I doubt it.

Please clarify your post, SUZANNE. I'd be interested in addressing your point, but I'm not sure what it is.

Wouldn't equality be men getting preferential parking in front of hardware stores and women getting it in front of shoe stores?

How about a parking spot for old guys with bladder/prostate issues?
That's one parking sign that I don't want to see, Texas.

[And that's Ms Allah, maz2.]

It seems to me that groups such as SOW are one of many government organizations that are not only outdated but were never necessary to create in the first place. Just a bunch of busy bodies who found their gravy train and are riding it into the sunset. Whoo-Whoo!!! Attaboy!! er, girl...

The general population holds politicians in varying degrees of contempt. So I find it ironic that feminists bemoan the fact that more of them aren't women.

Maybe it’s a continuation of the suffragette assumption that if women had the vote, “There would be no more wars because mothers would never vote to send their sons to kill some other mother’s son!”

Everything would be all warm and cuddly in Nanny Land.

Look. Let's get a few things straight about why women don't become politicians as often as men, or surgeons, or airline pilots.

It's not that they're not as capable as men, it's that they have--drum roll, trumpet fanfare--other priorities. There are alot of jobs that require one to be on-call or do shift work or be away from home a lot, and there are a lot of women with children who, frankly, don't want those jobs.

Radical feminists really patronize (matronize?) women when they demand that women and men share career choices equally, 50-50, and they deny women the capability of choosing.

Women, more often than not, CHOOSE not to be politicians, surgeons, airline pilots, etc., because they want to be more involved in the lives of their families than these jobs allow. It's their CHOICE, something radical feminists say they are all for.

Well, show me.

I can't imagine Kate settling for equal.

If these "human rights" groups (women's rights, gay rights, Unionized worker's rights, etc) were really about "rights" they would take their dog and pony shows overseas where there are no "rights". They don't seem to give two shits that in some cultures women are denied education and essentially shacked, gays hacked to death, and children forced to work 10 hour days for pennies. Doesn't that tell you they don't really care about "human rights" issues AT ALL, and that they are really just saying "gimme, gimme, gimme".

Just in case anyone's wondering, here is a list, not exhaustive, of some hallmarks "radical feminists":

* rabidly anti-men (and boys);
* 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 generally 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;
* say they're for "choice," but only if you agree with their 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;
* they consider 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.

I am soo-OOoo0o tempted to shave off my moustache, have a pair of 34 D's installed and get the elusive parking spots.

keep the moustache and tell everyone you are Italian.

I once got tested for chromosome abnormality.

I had blood in my urine and the medics were checking if I was a heshe.

Im laying in the hospital bed thinking hmmm, I got a weenie and like girls; theyre on the wrong track.

the nurse was surprised when *I* told *her* I knew what the cheek swab was for at the young age of 11 or 12. (this was back in the dark ages when doctors didnt tell the patients NUTHIN)

reading those medical encyclopedias of my parents sure paid off over the years.

the bleeding recurred numerous times but finally stopped about 15 years ago. my bladder was sensitive to cold and stress. I figured THAT out myself as well.

One of the first things I get asked when I meet someone is what I "do". As in what job outside the home. I tell them I am a stay at home mom who does childcare. This automatically changes the persons attitude towards me. I have actually been asked on several occasions what I do with all my spare time at home. Yes apparently by society's standards if I do not go out to work, I am lazy, dumb, and must watch Oprah all day. What I do at home is not valued because society is told by feminists that real women go outside their home to work.

Taking care of children, unless it is in a commercial setting like a school or a commercial daycare, is not work.

What I do is work. Today I had 6 children in my house including my own. Sometimes that number sometimes goes up as high as 7 which is the legal maximum I can have. I do more work by 8 am than many people do by noon.

I hear all the time "Wow she works (outside the home) and still manages to take care of the kids." Yes, she most likely works very hard, but I never hear that about a stay at home mom, who works just as hard, but just happens to do different type of work.

I take great pride in caring for these children. I know that they like it here because they do not want to leave at the end of the day. My "work" may not make much difference to the feminists, or even threaten their agenda, but it makes a world of difference to the children and the parents.

The irony of those parking spaces...isn't is old fashioned chivalry...(ooo makes the feminist shiver to hear that word) to show 'courtesy' to a woman!And feminists are not pro family so I don't think the whole 'privileged parking for mom's and tots' situation is their idea.
What we can thank feminists and SoW for: the employment posting that said' 'white males need not apply'And the changes to the income tax act that disallowed 'spousal dependence' as a tax break.When I 'chose' to stay home with my children I was dependent on my husband...our personal choice.But Hedy Fry and the likes of her would imply that I was 'forced' to be there..."barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen"...actually I prefered to be barefoot and out in my garden, with the kids.
The day that SoW is cut off will not come soon enough for me... good to see such well informed comments here.
Real Women,with Gwen Landolt as VP is a powerful, self-supporting active group, finally getting well deserved recognition.

Da Wife: I bow the knee to you.

What you do is the most important job in the world. The feminist movement has devalued it.

If I ever met you, I'd love to talk about your day. I know you make a profound difference.

When asked what I do I answer "I take care of my wife and our home." It confuses the bleep out of most people and REALLY annoys the feminists.

Saying "I'm disabled" seems ... wrong. I get a pair of disability pensions, true, but I can still do some things, at least enough to (most days) keep a home clean, cook food, go to the grocery store, etc..

What really, really annoys me about SOW and other feminist groups is the strength of their attacks against men in the few areas where males need changes in law and public attitude. How can someone claim to be for equality and stand opposed to fairness & equality?

They just do not make sense to me.

old macdonald had a SOW e-i-e-i-o !!!

a fax sent to SOW 2 minutes ago:

to: status of women

re: questions

following are the contact email addresses on your web site,
none of which matches my questions:

publications@swc-cfc.gc.ca (Publications)
information@swc-cfc.gc.ca (Library Services)
communications@swc-cfc.gc.ca
(Commemorative Dates and Media Inquiries)
gbad@swc-cfc.gc.ca (Gender-based Analysis Directorate)
research@swc-cfc.gc.ca (Research Directorate)
wpppf@swc-cfc.gc.ca (Women's Program)
webcoord@swc-cfc.gc.ca (Web Coordinator)

which are not:

‘publications’ or
‘library services’ or
‘media enquiries’ or
‘gender whatever’ or
‘research’ or
‘women’s program’ or
‘web thingy’

my questions are these:

- how long had SOW existed?

- what measurements have been done on the effectiveness of this department of gov’t?

- if things are still bad for women, isn’t it time to try something different? also,

- why does the FAQ area of the web site contain absolutely nothing?

feel free to email me the answers. or not.

thank you !

LOL !!!

how many billions does THIS govt dept waste?

Thank you lookout for the kind words.

I just opened my Childcare tax benefit and a little note was included that they are creating more childcare spaces.

I would like to know exacly how this is benefiting me and others, including taxpayers.

-Since commercial daycare spaces will be available for much less than I can charge, I will go out of business.

-I and others who do at home daycare will be forced to go back into the workforce and take a job from someone else who wants to be in the workforce. The CHOICE that the feminists are fighting for will be taken away from me. I CHOOSE to stay at home but will not be able to.

-My children will no longer be raised by me, the way I feel is right. Instead a corporation will be dictating how my child gets raised for 10 hours a day.

-Everyone's taxes will most likely go up to support the childcare spaces, forcing even more families to send a second parent into the workforce. The taxes will keep going up as the bureaucracy gets more and more bloated and has cost overruns.

-Parents will have less of a choice where to send their kids to daycare since the corporate subsidized daycare will become the norm. Parents will have no say in what happens to their children while at daycare. Their children will not be treated as individuals but just as another kid of hundreds of thousands of kids.

Da Wife, I love your nom de plume. I am glad others use this term besides myself. I have been calling my wife, "the wife" for over 30 years now and we are both still amazed at the reaction of others when the term is used.i.e. I mow the lawn while the wife takes care of the garden (better green thumb). Most people seem to think this is somehow derogatory. You'd think I called her "the old lady " or "the ball & chain".

BTW: I still consider a stay-at-home mom to be an honourable profession. And helping to raise those other rug rats is no small chore either. Oh yeah, what was on Oparah yesterday? [just kidding]

Da Wife, I hear you and feel sad. Hang in there if you can.

The feminist take on child care is just another proof that their apparent allegiance to equality and diversity is just a smokescreen for a supreme lack of concern for children and the supremacy of their socialist utopia.

REAL Women has been fighting this inequity and injustice for nearly three decades. Check out their website. I think they've got some good info there. (Unfortunately, governments seem in thrall to the FAKE--read, feminist--women. It's a national scandal.)