The Primary Difference Between Kathy Shaidle And Me

One commonly-reiterated stat is that when both partners in a relationship are working full-time outside of the home, the woman does twice as much housework as the man.

But recently there was a study done to determine the amount of time single men and women who lived alone spent on housework: the women in the study did twice as much housework, on average, as the men.

Well, hold on Bucko: upon further study it turns out that the single men's housekeeping habits could be attributed to the fact that they were being trained by the brotherhood of the patriarchy to oppress any women they might live with in the future.

Interpreting statistics is a proundly fine art.

YES!

Kathy Shaidles' really kicking butt tonight!! Get out your table saw, Kate, it's time to cut some capers...Let's give those radical feminist screechers (read Steve Janke's definition of a radical feminist) a run for their money.

For all their talk of being "open" and "tolerant" they're actually a very narrow-minded, nasty, intolerant bunch of bullies. Too bad they've got so much of our money.

But let's keep speaking truth into their lies every time they say something stupid like "Women are victims," or "Men are the cause of all domestic violence," or "Three-quarters of women have been raped."

Good G*d, the list goes on and on. They're really beginning to look foolish...and tired...and irrelevant.

And how about those nuns?

The women that I know and love have way, way less than no time at all for the various Lesbian Recruiting Centers that receive govenment funding for useless and self serving projects. They have been breathing their own exhaust for so long that they actually believe the crap that they spout.

I think that Kate and Kathy have it right. Scrap it and lets get on with building a country.

Pat

We have never had time for this and it is a refreshing note that more and more it is being realized. Too bad they have any money at all. Cut their funding and maybe they will go away , shut up and put a shoulder to the wheel.
THAT might actually add up to doing something constructive.

Well, you're also a LOT more photogenic, believe me :-)

We Papists always get a chuckle at outsiders who point the finger at the Church for being "patriarchal."

They obviosly know nothing about nuns; if they did, they'd realize who really runs the Church!

Remember the Mother Superior in the Blues Brothers? Only a movie? Perhaps...

My wife can vouch for Kathy's experience: the sisters who were her teachers inculcated her with a singular will to get on with life and succeed at whatever she chose to do.

Interesting here in the UK at the moment. There have been one or two longtime feminists seriously questioning what the hell the women's movement here actually thinks it's accomplishing by making common cause with Hezbollah and other Islamist radical groups.

Interesting here in the UK at the moment. There have been one or two longtime feminists seriously questioning what the hell the women's movement here actually thinks it's accomplishing by making common cause with Hezbollah and other Islamist radical groups.

You don't say!

That was one fine lecture by Shaidle. Hats off to her. Bravo!

Canadian feminists: What a whiny, unpleasant, even unattractive--usually--group of humourless losers. As batb says, they're a bunch of (often butch) bullies who can't see past their own very long--as in Pinocchio--noses. They've foisted onto society so many ridiculous lies about the lives of women (that we're helpless victims) and how we relate to the men (we're afraid of them) and children (parasites in need of lots of government $$) in our lives, that their credibility's pretty well shot.

Unfortunately, their utopian ideas have been internalized by all kinds of institutions--schools, medical facilities, the Anglican and other mainline Protestant churches, GOVERNMENTS--where new ideas are never welcome: too many perqs for the phalanx of professionals trying to solve all the feminist sponsored--and created--problems.

E.g., Women who willfully choose to have kids without the support of the men who fathered them are asking for a whole lot of trouble, including often living in poverty: I believe the graph line for kids living in poverty is in direct proportion to the (unacceptable, I'd say) number of out of wedlock births we now have in Canada. Has anyone ever heard this considered when solutions to poverty are being discussed? CBC this morning: More government $$ is needed. Was anyone on to give a different perspective? Of course not.

It's not a fact that many people want to hear but the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics has data--suppressed when it first came out--showing that MARRIED women are 4 times LESS likely to suffer abuse from their husbands than women living in less stable relationships. Duh! Also, it's a fact that non related males in the household are far more likely to abuse children than their own fathers are. Duh, again. Conclusion: FACT: IN GENERAL, MARRIAGE IS GOOD FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!!

As more and more children, now reaching a critical mass, are living away from their own fathers, their financial, emotional, and physical comfort and safety are being seriously compromised. Feminist solution? More governmemt $ for more shelters and counselling programs. I think the kids would far prefer to have a real, loving dad in their lives--maybe even at home--instead. The sexual revolution has been a revolution in our kids' lives all right: an umitigated disaster! (And I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions to this bleak scenario. Of course there are. But that's what they are: exceptions.)

The feminist scenario for women--work and have sex like men: how ironic!--has been, overall, an utter disaster for us and our kids. Fortunately, too many of us are too smart--boy do the feminists underestimate their sisters' good sense!--to have fallen for it. Those who have are likely to be reaping the whirlwind. (Unfortunately, the rest of us are caught up in the whirlwind too.)

The fact that we're even having this discussion here--thanks, Kate!--is very encouraging. Questioning feminist orthodoxy is almost a hanging offence in official Canada. But if you can't name the problem, the solution's always going to be elusive. So, we're naming the problem: a very good start!

Great thread. I've got a comment in the filter--WHAT did I say?--which I hope sees the light of day. Have a good one, everyone.

If anyone is interested in making the anti-SOW blogburst a, ahem, monthly event or otherwise keep up the pressure to eliminate this useless org, contact "suzanne" (above) via bluewavecanada.blogspot. This was all her idea and judging from my traffic stats, she has struck a nerve.

Read Phyllis Schafley's bio and how she destroyed the Equal Rights Amendment even when it was guaranteed to be ratified. It CAN be done.

To borrow a little ditty from Dr. Seuss:
The time has come, the time is now,
Their time is up,
GET RID OF SoW!!

Pat - Lesbian Recruiting Centers????

I LOVE IT!!!!!!

great post one of the reasons I keep comming back. Plus following your links makes my news searches easy

‘Just thought you might be interested to know where our hard-earned dollars are going once they get into SOW’s account, and THIS IS ONLY THE AMOUNT THAT IS BEING SPENT IN THE “1st QUARTER OF 2006 -2007.”

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/about/disclosures/gc/2006-2007/q1_e.html

Grants and contributions over $25,000 (all given on 08/06/06):

Women’s Group, Quebec $49,000

Women’s Centre, B. C. $26,000

“Wellbeing through inclusion socially and
economically (wise),” B.C. $29,100

Single Women in Motherhood Training, Ontario $50,040

“Community Microskills Centre, Ontario $100,000

Third Street Resource Centre, working with
“mothers facing poverty and other forms of
exclusion” to help them “offset barriers to their
participation in the Montreal school system,”
Quebec $30,216

Project to develop “a three-year strategy to ensure
that regional decision-making bodies take the
needs of women into account,” Quebec $36,200

The total amount in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia (I wonder what happened to women’s projects in the other provinces?) comes to $490,000, almost half a million dollars, IN JUST THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE YEAR. If you read the descriptions of these initiatives, the jargon used and the general nature of their description makes them almost meaningless.

You can be sure, however, that all of the women targeted by these projects are in some way “victims.” They are immigrant women, single women, single mothers, women in poverty and, it seems, most have been “excluded” in some way. They obviously need government money and programs to be able to be included. And, it seems, only the radical feminists have the answers and solutions which, with the taxpayers’ largesse, they are willing to dispense to underprivileged women.
’Just thought you might be interested to know where our hard-earned dollars are going once they get into SOW’s account, and THIS IS ONLY THE AMOUNT THAT IS BEING SPENT IN THE “1st QUARTER OF 2006 -2007.”

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/about/disclosures/gc/2006-2007/q1_e.html

Grants and contributions over $25,000 (all given on 08/06/06):

Women’s Group, Quebec $49,000

Women’s Centre, B. C. $26,000

“Wellbeing through inclusion socially and
economically (wise),” B.C. $29,100

Single Women in Motherhood Training, Ontario $50,040

“Community Microskills Centre, Ontario $100,000

Third Street Resource Centre, working with
“mothers facing poverty and other forms of
exclusion” to help them “offset barriers to their
participation in the Montreal school system,”
Quebec $30,216

Project to develop “a three-year strategy to ensure
that regional decision-making bodies take the
needs of women into account,” Quebec $36,200

The total amount in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia (I wonder what happened to women’s projects in the other provinces?) comes to $490,000, almost half a million dollars, IN JUST THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE YEAR. If you read the descriptions of these initiatives, the jargon used and the general nature of their description makes them almost meaningless.

You can be sure, however, that all of the women targeted by these projects are in some way “victims.” They are immigrant women, single women, single mothers, women in poverty and, it seems, most have been “excluded” in some way. They obviously need government money and programs to be able to be included. And, it seems, only the radical feminists have the answers and solutions which, with the taxpayers’ largesse, they are willing to dispense to underprivileged women.

Sorry about the double post: Twice the urgency, maybe...? ;-)

So, umm.... what kind of table saw do you have?

Just wondering.

I just had a thought:

Kate and Kathy for President and Vice-President!!

Oh, I forgot. That's only in the U.S. of A.

Then, how about for GG and Minister in Charge of SOW?

Now we're talking...

Correction.

My apologies: The total of SOW's grants for the first quarter of 2006 - 2007 (?) should be:

$419,331

Do I get a grant from SOW for being math challenged?

It's still a whopping amount, it covers only the 1st quarter of SOW's fiscal year, and these programs serve women in only three provinces.

What's wrong with this picture?

So if SOW gets upwards of $29 million in Federal fundng and doles out less than $2 million.......?

Does this smell like a bureaucratic money pit to you?

I think this needs more investigation.

BTW Kathy S.....wonderfull posting.

And those SOW funds to feminists are only ones we can actually SEE. A feminist-lesbian slush fund, The Court Challenges Program, which funds many of their legal battles, most of which they win--activist judges with an agenda--is out of the purview of Parliamentary review or approval.

$419 000 is nothing. The octopus tentacles of feminism are entwined in so many public programs that they really had access to $ multi millions in the first quarter. (Just think of all the free trips, treats, and training to kids with irresponsible parents that are handed out by the truckload by many feminist principals from their large discretionary funds. E.g., The child of the most irresponsible parent of all the kids in my class had everything paid for by the school all year--and didn't pay for the three quarter reduced fee for lost library books. The mother--from a "disadvantaged" group--who was always well dressed, just sat back and ignored all notices from the school until someone from admin. called her and offered everything up on a silver platter. Nice scam if you can have it!)

The professional feminists are slick con artists taking advantage of every scam they can. 'Trouble is, Canadians, including far too many Conservative governments, allow them to get away with it.

'been around the block - that half-million in grants is almost certainly not going to the clientele of the Women's Groups, but to the administration of the Group.

Effectively, our tax money is used to pay the administrators of these groups. We are funding their jobs. We are not funding any women who come to these centres. The administrators use a different Fund, such as Welfare Funds, for that.

Get the difference? Those funds are for the staff of these centres, not for the clientele.

Kathy's article was superb. I completely agree. The Status of Women has zilch to do with anyone other than the bureaucrats it employs. It funds their wages, benefits, pensions, offices, computers etc etc. Period.

Correction: SoW gets $23 million anuall funding!
Spends only $2 million??

What's missing?

Correction: SoW gets $23 million annual funding!
Spends only $2 million to fund programs??

What's missing?

ET, you wrote, "that half-million in grants is almost certainly not going to the clientele of the Women's Groups, but to the administration of the Group."

You've got it, je suis d'accord. I wish I'd made that clear in my last post, but it was long enough as it was.

All of the mamby-pamby "empowerment" (sic)programs SOW runs are already being covered by other government departments, most likely at the municipal or provincial level, so all of this SOW funding is redundant and a colossal waste--criminal, IMHO--of taxpayers' hard earned cash. Not "wasted," however, on the part of the SOW administrators and instructors, as you point out.

SOW grants are a scam of the first order, and it's time for some Canadian government to put a complete halt to them. "Disadvantaged," "underprivileged," "immigrant," "poverty-stricken," "victim" women have become a very lucrative industry for the SOWs guzzling at the public trough and has very little to do with the feminists' concern for women, let alone the women's children. Without this funding I think you'd see most of them making a hasty retreat from the programs they say are so "necessary" and "urgent."

As Kathy Shaidle points out, if their programs are so successful, and therefore deserving of years and years and mulit-millions of dollars of government grants, how come SOW keeps telling us that women's lives are not improving?

'Seems to me that the proof is in the pudding: Women's lives still substandard after all of NAC's and SOW's help for 30 years? Sisters, you must be doing something wrong.

Addendum to above post: The radical feminists will never allow themselves to be confused with the facts--that their programs don't work and never will--because their salaries from the SOW grants are just too good to put in jeopardy.

The underside of male courtesy--not chauvinism: About 35 years ago, even to the present, the males in government, who'd been taught to respect and honour women, got hoodwinked. They mistook feminists for real women and deferred to them.

I love them, but, silly men. LOL ;-(

SOW gets $23 million a year in funding.

Part of that (around $10 million) goes towards paying for gender based analysis of all government bills introduced in Parliament to ensure the act does not discriminate against women, children or , get this, men.

As John Cleese has noted, satire's toast: These days, real life and politics are far weirder than anything comedians could dream up in their zaniest imaginings.

Too bad.

SOW funding to various groups, 1997-2003, obtained through a FOI application by Real Women of Canada:

1997-1998: $8,286,059.00
1998-1999: $10,321,916.00
1999-2000: $8,502,412.00
2000-2001: $9,810,390.00
2001-2002: $10,385,851.00
2002-2003: $12,297,090.00

Favourite groups in that time span include:

Women's Network PEI $389,476.00
Coalition of Child care Advocates of BC: $240,500.00
Vancouver Status of Women: $416,058.00
Alliance of Five Research Centres on Violence: $1,425,240.00
Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW): $1,512,583.00
Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: $734,120.00
Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada (CCAAC): $302,089.00
National Action Committee on the Status of Women : $984,551.00
National Watch on Images of Women in the Media Inc. (Mediawatch): $1,288,997.00
Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF): $900,334.00
Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care: $410,035.00
Saskatchewan Action Committee, Status of Women: $289,400.00
Fédération des femmes du Québec: $347,084.00

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2003_sept_oct/article_7.html

SOW funding 2004-2005: $10,840,000.00

Favourites:

Canadian National Coalition of Experiential Women: $322,646.00
Nation Association of Women and the Law: $474,879.00
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Society: $332,250.00
National Action Committee on the Status of Women: $150,000.00
Child Care Advisory Association of Canada (CCAC): $483,753.00
United Nations Women's Platform for Action Committee (Manitoba): $151,100.00
Canadian Women's Community Economic Development Council: $223,755.00
Feminist Alliance for International Action: $619,201.00

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2005_sept_oct/article_6.html

david a. giles - remember, that money goes to pay the salaries of the administrators and staff of these centres. The money goes to their salaries, pensions, benefits; it pays for their offices, for purchasing their office equipment, their computers, telephones, transportation, conference trips, restaurant meals, books, etc and etc.

It doesn't go to any 'needy women'. The real women in need are funded, at far, far lower rates by other taxpayer funds.

The Status of Women has transformed itself into a giant employment agency for upper middle class women. These SofW administrators live very well off the taxpayer's money.

Trust me ET, I do not, in any way, shape or form, support SOW or any of the groups they fund.

Kate: I used to have one of those Taiwan specials from Busy Bee. It cut wood, but it was hell to use. Always had to twiddle with the blade settings, clamp the fence with an extra clamp to make sure it didn't wander, table wasn't flat, etc. etc.

In short, a pain in the butt-ox.

But now I have a General. Woo, I love my saw now! Set it and cut. Oh baby, what a thing of beauty.

Like to see the chicks from SOW Inc. build a book case some day. That'd be a riot eh? Talk about reality TV.

OK.... take $10.84 Million and subtract $2.76 million..........
you get roughly $8.08 million

So sow took 10.8 million dollars of taxpayers money and turned it into 2.7 million of grants to groups of questionable merrit.....so far makes perfect sense for Liberal creation. We can sfely assume that the majority of that money will be spent true to fashion on admin ( salaries ).

I'd like to know where the other $8 million plus that did not go to grants went!!

Any ideas?

Mine is no Taiwan special. It's sold cast iron, and probably 50 years old. My dad gave it to me a few months ago, and over the past few days I've been using it to cut Celltek for a large signage order.

Just FYI, the Globe and Mail has picked up on this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060824.wsow0824/BNStory/National/home

Now get over there and provide covering fire!!!

>> Mine is no Taiwan special. It's sold cast iron, and probably 50 years old.

Thanks for the note! Is it a Craftsman or a Rockwell? Just wondering.

I have a Ridgid contractor's saw which is pretty good, but I am thinking that I should have gone with a General. Oh well. Live and learn.

It's a Callander Foundry & Mfg. Co "Beaver". It apparently predates the purchase of the company by Rockwell in 1953 - so when I said it's 50 years old, it wasn't an exaggeration.

>> It's a Callander Foundry & Mfg. Co "Beaver".

Is it one of these?

http://www.owwm.com/files/PDF/Beaver/Beaversawmanual.pdf

They do not make them like they used to!

Can't say. The pdf was a little large for dial-up.

My isp is 50 years old, as well.