Well said Kate. Well said.

There are numerous organizations like SOW which are really just tax-payer funded welfare bodies for employing a few left-wing idiots.

These clowns hang out in organizations (or departments, as in the case of universities), where standards of truth are low.

SOW?

Am I the only one to find this porcine acronym amusing?

But don't we all miss Sunera Thobani?

I remember when funding to the SOW was being cut back in the '90's and the howling complaints from the Thobanis and Rebecks about how this affected their ability to represent Canadian women. I then estimated that if even a fraction of adult women contributed 50 cents or one dollar per person, the organizations financial problems would be solved. That none did truly showed how marginalized SOW was.

Keep up the good work Kate! and Suzanne too...Would Lysack care to explain that?...never mind...consider the source. And do we know who has the privilege of the SOW in their portfolio?
The time has come, the time is now....
GET RID of SOW.(acronym appropos)

The big remaining problem with respect to women, that handicaps our demographics, is the fact that professional women (lawyers, accountants) give up ground in their careers to have babies. I’m not suggesting the government step in; I’m not even sure what they could do.

But we need more homegrown babies to be brought up in a Canadian culture. I’d like to see more smart educated women have more babies. Maybe their reward is simply staying home with the kid for a while and that is sufficient reward in and of itself. I for one sure appreciate it when they do.

Dare I jump into the gender specific socialist wars? Hell, why not.
I actually went to the SWC site (not SOW) and read some of the papers written. The latest being about Women in the Farm and Agriculture. Seems that these farm women are stressed out due to financial hardships, changing social strata (ie moving to the big city) and government policies, just to name a few. And this is different than men farming how? The paper could have been written without the word female and the conclusions would be the same. Their "fact finding" is nothing more than duplication of findings by the Dept of Agriculture.

This is nothing more than nest building by a bunch of well paid socialists that are on the government teat.

Kate, Along with everyone else, well said! Do gooders! It seem like every group has a "cause" that the taxpayers are suppose to fund. Lets get back to the basics, running the country, security, medical and education. We make the choices in the career field we enter, if you don't like what your getting paid, change jobs!(Or move)

Great post, Kate. Let's keep the heat turned on.

One small addition which, I think, is relevant about Jennifer Ditchburn's slanted article in Mclean's.

Miss Ditchburn has been a reporter for the CBC; I can precisely see her dark hair and young face on camera covering something on the CBC news.

My G*d the Canadian MSM is incestuous. So, her head is full of CBC/NAC/SOW/Thobani/Rebick claptrap and Mclean's has her on board now to 'speak the Canadian values truth' to the rest of us. (I wonder where she went to university?)

'Makes me glad I cancelled my Mclean's subscription a few months ago. The only good thing about the magazine is Mark Steyn, and I can read back copies in my dentist's office.

Oh Canada...

Right on, Texas Canuch, health, financial, re-location, career, and relationship stressors are gender neutral. We all have stress and issues in our lives at times. Life isn't easier on my husband because he is a male.

Where inequality really exists, where women are systemically abused, disenfranchised legally and politically, forced to wear stigmatizing burquas, subject to disfiguring primitive sexual genital surgery, stoned for misdemeanors, our dear guardians of women's rights withhold their indignation for political reasons, the smarmy hypocrits.

There really aren't any significant women's issues left to settle in NA or Europe at this time in history. But, that's not what these harpies are about anymore, anyways. The feminists have morphed like the civil rights groups, the environmentalists, and the ACLU into twisted caricatures, far different from their historic past, and are nothing more than lefty victim panhandlers.

As for Monica Lysack, "When you look at women in Canada and their human rights compared to international standards, we have a long way to go."

A long waty tpo go where? All the way back to Iran or Saudi Arabia??

Also, it's not just social conservativce who want SOW axed; me too and I'm libertarian and libertine.

Thanks for the excellent post, Kate. This is an important issue. It's actually about accountability of the use of the taxpayer's money. It has nothing to do with the CPC government, with 'conservativism', or even with political ideology.

SOW and its linked groups are financially unaccountable. That's the first problem. This financial unaccountability hides the non-feminist use of the taxpayer's money.

The second problem is that these groups assert their legitimacy by a false claim of relevance and vital importance. As many have pointed out, these feminist groups are no longer relevant. And, as also has been pointed out, these feminist groups discriminate; they accept only one ideology and denigrate any woman who chooses to, for example, stay at home to raise the children, or who doesn't want to 'be a politician'. They ignorantly define equality by numbers (the same number of men/women in parl't); ie, by result - and ignore equality of choice.

The only ideology that SOW represents, the left ideology, is used as a front to hide the reality of how our taxpayer funds are used by SOW. As has been noted, if SOW were genuine, it would be obliged to represent ALL views about women, not just those of the left.

Why does it present only the left view? Because that view is focused around guilt and failure rather than success. Using these emotional pleas ensures SOW's continued funding - even when the basic realities deny that the majority of women are subject to victimization, or failures due to discrimination etc.

A vital point, also referred to, is the complete lack of comment from SOW and people within that lefist ideology, to promote the freedom of women in those societies where they are genuinely oppressed; namely, the Muslim states. Not a word from the feminists about this. Complete and utter silence. That means that their existence, their programs, have nothing to do with women's benefit, but has another purpose.

What's the purpose of SOW and groups like them? They are employment centres for educated, middle class women. That's all they are.

These taxpayer funded centres actually have one and only one purpose. Administrative jobs for a group of like-minded educated middle class women. The taxpayer funds provide their salaries, pensions, benefits. The funds pay for their offices, their office equipment, the costs of running the office (telephone, heat, hydro, computer equipment etc). The funds pay for their running to various conferences to give and listen to their intellectually empty papers, the funds pay for their meetings and so on.

These funds are NOT given to the 'victimized women'. Other taxpayer funds are used for that, and those monies are a pittance of what these well-paid administrators get in a month.

Then, when someone asks for accountability for the use of these funds - they refuse. When we try to find out what, exactly, they do with our tax dollars, we receive the leftist verbiage about 'helping the victims'. On and on.

But it's a false front. These groups don't help any 'victims'. These groups are centres of administrative jobs for middle class women. That's all they are.

Let me address that "international standards" crap for a minute.

I just spent three and a half weeks at an orphanage in Kenya. They have 867 kids, and they do such an amazing job. All are former street kids, foraging through dumpsters in the slums, or turning to prostitution out of desperation or coercion.

Now they have a home.

What surprised me when I went over there was that most of these kids are not actually AIDS orphans (there certainly are some, but not the majority). They are victims of poverty, abuse, neglect, an inferior medical system (mothers died in childbirth for instance), and other stuff.

What Africa needs, perhaps even more than AIDS dollars, is infrastructure and alleviation of poverty.

So when people talk about how Canada is down by international standards, they are talking total garbage. Most women in Africa have nothing. They aren't worried about female rights, or even AIDS, as much as they are worried about where the next meal is coming from.

In Canada, we don't worry about that.

Feminists who claim to speak for Canadian women are insanely presumptuous. But to speak for third world women, saying that their main concern is lesbian rights and access to abortion, are even worse.

I'd like to see this debate breakout into the mainstream by way of "town halls" in all of the ridings in the country. Typical Canadians [women and men, husbands and wives, parents and siblings] are way out ahead of the politicos on this and they are with Kate's excellent post.

The isolation of msm writers like Jennifer Ditchburn, not to mention the surfacing of authenticity vs. dated feminist cant, would do communities a world of good.

I know so few women who agree with the Status Of Women that its time to expose this "truth agency" for the Orwellian outpost that it is.

And by chance from Michelle Malkin just today about an Islamic apostate in trouble in Malaysia:

Yoo-hoo, American feminists. Have you nothing to say about this case? Perhaps if Lina Joy were clamoring for the right to marry an atheist woman instead of a Christian man, you'd be all over it, huh?

The whole "Women's" Program is a fraud--and a front for radical feminists. Long ago, as a "disloyal member of the opposition", I used to be very involved in challenging the feminists. Like the gays today, they were very canny at promoting themselves as legitimate victims. And, as I said in an earlier post, the male oppressors of women in our governments--even Conservative ones--went so against type and were so gentlemanly, they caved entirely and gave these harridans--for that's what most of them are--just about everything they asked for, or at least $ millions upon millions to lobby for it. A total crock.

Canadians should look at what the $$ feminists extort from the Canadian taxpayer do. It's generally anything that's anti-men and anti-family, and they promote irresponsible behaviour for women: Have sex like men and then insist that the rest of society support you and your definitely deprived and often seriously dysfunctional children. This is a truth one's not allowed to speak in Canada. Have a good look at children and poverty, poor educational achievement, poor self-esteem, crime, etc. From where does the largest group come? This is a banned question. Many fewer feminists and government $$ would reduce the number of children living with one, poor, stressed out mother. (There are certainly exceptions. Many single parents do a heroic and wonderful job: I’m not talking about them.)

Radical feminism has zilch to do with "equality". It actually fits my "adult toddler" thesis very well. Feminist Credo: Even when I'm grown up, I don't have to make responsible decisions. Because I'm a victim, I can make any decision I damn well please and "Daddy" aka, the government, will have to pay--and pay--and pay. So there!

Real women--vs the toddler variety--don't think this way. We may be far from perfect, but we take responsibility for our decisions, and, if we wish to have children, we understand the very valuable and precious part the fathers of our children play in our and our children's lives. We realize that the best social program ever devised is the family. With all its problems, in general, the family's a darn sight warmer, more functional, and reliable than the government. That feminists hoodwink women into putting their trust in government for their and their children's well being is an utter travesty. (Ironic too: don't trust your own father or the father of your children, but trust a group of male bureaucrats in Ottawa. What a laugh! Well, it would be if it weren't such a blight on so many lives.)

Because of their myopic and magical thinking and the lies they spread everywhere they go, feminists—nearly always represented at the government level and in universities by the most unhappy, fringe, often lesbian family and men haters, think, Deb Frisch--are a positive danger to women. (Men, children, and society at large too.)

REAL Women deserves a medal for being on the feminists' case for decades, lobbying and taking on court cases, at their own expense, in favour of real women and their families. Although this group has always been the truth teller, it's been maligned and shunned by all the elites in this "tolerant, diversity loving" country for nearly three decades. And what has REAL Women done? Sat down and had a tantrum? Nope. Its non government funded members, led by the indomitable Gwen Landolt, lawyer, founder, wife, mother, and grandmother--this is a short list of her accomplishments--have got on with the job of trying to conform public policy to the real needs of women and their families. I'm delighted to see that some others are now publicly stepping up tothe plate in order to expose the lies and deviousness of the official feminists.

This is like any other organization whose mandate has been completed, they are looking for a reason to exist. Most unions these days are the same as workers are treated fine but every year they find something to make an issue so that they have a reason to exist.

Please excuse my stupid white Christian male comment of the day: If the push to further the status of woman in Canada is reduced could that money be re-channelled to address issues concerning the erosion of the family? Also, would that give a little extra room to have human rights for the unborn? How about putting the effort into deadbeat dad legislation that has real teeth (including teen sperm donors)? Wouldn't those efforts serve to strengthen the foundation of Canada's society?

I'm into the Peter Kreeft "How do you know an apple is an apple" argument. I view the effort to increase/protect the status of women as an excuse for the courts not to answer Peter's question. To date I've never heard of an expecting mother proudly describe the main subject of her ultrasound images as a fetus. Has anyone?

Just a cautionary note...an organization to monitor/maintain/encourage the status of women may still be valid for some issues. Two that come to mind are: 1) the suggestion that Ontario adopt Sharia Law a few years ago; and 2) as a rebuttal against the attitude of kids these days (particularly urban, particularly the hip-hop crowd as far as I can see) with girls referred to as the boys "wh*#es" and "bit*#es".

I wouldn't think there is much "boundary pushing" that needs to be done anymore, but maintaining the current "status" would be valid, n'est pas?

Wont be done till there is a majority government.

Too risky, can be spun the wrong way too easily.

IMHO.

Any organization that starts out with a laudable and justifiable goal will (like any organism) get to a point where it develops its own instinct to survive. At this point, meaningful objectives take a back-seat to simply find a justification for existence. All charities and government sponsored interest groups have this pattern.

Whenever you look at any "annual review" coming out from one of these organizations, I guarantee you that you will always see two items stressed:

1) We have done a lot of great things.
2) There is much more work to do.

If either of those things are missing, then people will start to ask, "Then why do you continue to exist?" They can't have those kinds of questions.

Has anyone ever heard of a government social agency or charity that ever actually did its job and then closed up shop? No, because once they are in full swing, there are people whose meal ticket depends on ensuring that the original problem (the "raison d'etre") never goes away - or at least, appears to never go away.

If the problem does indisputably go away (as was the case of beating polio in the 1950's), the organizations always mutate to take on a new issue (The March of Dimes, for example).

Women's Rights is an excellent gravy-train to jump on board. The part of the article that really caught my eye was where it said...

Its stated objectives include addressing violence against women and promoting women's human rights. Its latest focus is on women's poverty and improving economic security.

None of those problems are exclusively problems for women. There will always be problems with violence. Some of the victims will always be women, so "violence against women" is a permanent meal ticket. Human right's issues will always be a topic on a global scale because no two countries will ever have the same level of priorities when it comes to rights. "poverty and improving economic security" - since when did that become a female issue as opposed to - oh say - children. If a family with a mother, father, and children is poor as a family, does that mean they are only concerned with the females in the family?

Poverty is a great one anyway. We in North America have the richest poor people in the world. It can never be beaten because the poverty line keeps moving as the standard of living rises.

All they are doing is making sure that they have a guaranteed source of income. They (like so many other government sponsored groups) are just an advanced form of pan-handler. They don't outright as for money...they ask for "assistance in dealing with women's issues". So what? It's all about how you frame it.

Even bums on the street have learned you get better results if, instead of asking for "spare change", you ask for "bus fare."

SheilaG, don't be silly. They very well can't discuss poverty, famine and poor health in the third world. It would positively put a damper on their business luncheons and a waste of a perfectly good taxpayer paid for expense.
This sounds like a segue into the agenda driven war on Aids. Granted it is a problem but there are other things that a few bucks can do about malaria, dysentry or clean water,that can make a greater impact on the lives of those in Africa. Trouble is those things are not chic enough to be taken up by the Cause du Jour gang of Hollywood.

If I were in charge I'd just cut off the funding and see how long they would last with donations.

Bet Harper doesn't have the guts to say bye bye Status of Women Canada.

Youse lazy male circular sloths better get goin'. Wifey will be throwin' ya over for a robot, Dagwood. ...-

Wives increasingly making more then[sic]their husbands: In 1967 there were two things that could be said about married women: If they were employed, they were likely earning less then their husbands; and they were more likely to ask for directions. While today's husbands may still prefer to drive in circles, society has made some progress on the economic issue. According to Statistics Canada almost a third of Canadian women earned more than their husbands in 2003, up from 11% in 1967. (Another poll from yer gubbmint).

Hassle...you have skimmed over an important point here...most of us are doing just fine...making choices,keeping up the pace, and building furniture if we'choose' to...SoW has not impacted my life in any way except for me to continually affirm that the day I 'chose' to stay home from my nursing profession to raise my kids runs counter to the anti-family ideas.

Multi-culti and feminism are all part of the culture of victimization. We need to champion women that have babies and society should recognize that raising children is the most important job in the country and it is a tough job but a rewarding job.

This leads to another discussion, the subsidisation of useless university degrees. One of the reasons we end up with what ET describes as creating useless jobs for middle class women is because expensive Social "Science?" courses that many of them have taken are useless in the workplace – for both men and women.

The solution is to charge more tuition. A BA is not a right. It often isn’t even needed. Charge full cost for a BA. Make loans available but let students figure out what leads to a real job. Use the extra fee income to allow more accessibility to an education in the trades and perhaps broaden the trade education to include accounting and basic “laissez faire” economics. Like motherhood, a stigma has been attached to the trades as opposed to a useless BA in Gender Studies.

I have a young niece who led her class as an electrician. That takes brains not brawn therefore women can easily do this electrical trade work. I’m sure she’ll succeed and someday I hope she has 20 electricians working for her.

The anti-capitalist forces within our society are pervasive and powerful. We need to champion a lot things that that the Liberal culture of victimization has caused. We need to champion our own culture, we need to champion parenthood, we need to champion the trades versus useless BA’s …

Texas Canuck, you beat me to it! If the SOW administrators started to speak out about Muslim women's oppression, they might have to go over to the ME, to justify their government funds and their "support" of Muslim women. What kind of a reception would they get from the Mullahs if they were working to help women get educated, to be free to meet together and organize? It could turn kind of nasty.

In addition, and as TC says, there go the three-hour lunches...well, at least at all the neat little cafes they frequent in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, or wherever it is that they hang out.

As ET and many others have pointed out, all of the SOW expenses are paid, including the very generous salary and benefits packages of the administrators and all of their office, travel, conference expenses, as well--and it's a gravy train, too, for many of their friends.

It's a viscious circle, because they all "feed" off each other--and us the taxpayer: The feminist network converges with the MSM, which converges with the universities, which converge with the unions, which converge with the educational system, so that there's "one message" the public hears about "women" (Lord have mercy, they've even hi-jacked this word): "Women are victims and need a lot of extra help which only the feminists know how to give. More money please."

They've made a lot of noise in the past; maybe we can quieten them down...

bryceman - nice post. Their mandate is indeed so ambiguous as to be without meaning.

As noted, these issues: violence, human rights, poverty and economic security are basic issues that will never be eradicated, for issues which have little to do with social organization but a great deal to do with psychology and statistics.

Violence is a psychological facet of the human psyche. It can never be eradicated and is found, almost equally, among men and women. Certainly, violence is also a social attribute, but once a society removes the privileging of violence, that doesn't mean that it will disappear completely. It's part of the human psyche.

Then, to assume that violence is only a male attribute is naive. Why is it that this institution ignores the violence carried out by women against men, the violence carried out by women against children?

Human rights is a social and political issue and has to apply to both genders.

Poverty is a comparative attribute and will never be eradicated in large complex societies because such a society has different levels of work requirements (a street sweeper vs a neurologist), different levels of ability, etc. Basic poverty is dealt with in the large industrial societies and is not due to these women's groups, but basic poverty in the African and other countries is ignored by these Canadian women's groups.

These groups have one agenda and only one agenda. They are employment centres for educated middle class women. Period. They do nothing to alleviate any of their stated agendas.

loboy2k:

The answer to that is easy. They wouldn't last very long at all...because, of course, there is no feeling of outrage from the among women in Canada (when it comes to "rights") so no one would be interested in supporting them.

But, that only means that the organization would disappear. The "members" would simply either a) Create a new organization through which to pilfer your and my money or b) Disperse and join different "goodwill" organizations that already have a well established set of hands in the cookie jar.

Bottom line: You can't eliminate the leeches or their effect on the country's pocketbook. You can only spread them out.

life's lessons to the MSM:

itsy bitsy insects can level towering structures.

the mainframe computer exclusivists with their plush carpeted corner offices and astronomical bonuses.... laughed at the introduction of desktop computers. who's laughing now?

beware MSM. there is a 'thing' out there called the blogosphere that works at lightening speed (literally) and is currently exposing your pandemic LYING.

and it will bring down all your indoctrinated mouthpieces at the same time.

there is no refuge for you.

the truth will out. the truth will out.

Actually, I just realized that my first post was a little too harsh in that I grouped all charity and good-will organizations together. There are exceptions:

Child Find is a worthy organization and it does indeed make sense that they have to pay people salaries to do their work. And "The Salvation Army" has managed to maintain a pretty good track record in making sure that the overwhelming majority of the money and goods it takes in goes to the needy for which it was intended...as opposed to entities like the "United Way" which is pretty much a corporation unto itself.

So, forgive me, I should have qualified my comments a bit.

They are discussing this on "Ontario Today" on CBC Radio as I write this.

This is an important topic. Groups like NOW are thugs.

The left have re-adjusted our language so that, as Pamela Bone suggested, "women" means "statist-left issues". Groups like SWC campaign on the taxpayer's dime to give a leg-up to women of a like mind to them, and they viciously impugn the character of women who differ with them.

In effect, they demand that families who buck the socialist trend by tending their own children foot the bill for urban leftists who campaign under the guise of "social justice".

Their rhetoric conventiently elbows aside the majority of women who should have the right to do whatever the hell they want and to not have their voices usurped by narrow-interest groups who are frankly too over-represented by lesbians to make legitimate claims to speak for "women".

They fight for the primacy of group-identity politics, and they seem relentlessly unable to comprehend the real world where women and men build their lives together and fight for each other and for their families.

The fact that you and Kathy Shaidle and millions of other women get along with men as much as with other women is a major hurdle to their goals -- hence the vicious language: "Shouldn't these 'real' women be at church repenting or at home breeding?"

What that really means is "STFU. You don't speak for yourself. We do."

Vicki: No, you are mistaken...I did not skim over anything. I recognize the points being made and do not wish to support a feminist organization with their current focus either.

That being said, though, I believe there IS a role for SOME group to monitor and reinforce the established status of women and forestall any "backsliding" that may occur.

If there are other organizations (particularly those not leeching off the public purse) who can address the status of women, then we could "make a silk purse out of the SOW's ear"-marked funds and put the old SOW down.

Granted, it may very well be that SOW has become so engulfed in feminism that it could never change its focus...and then a new organization would be rightly needed. But my point remains...there may still be a role (albeit small) for such a womens-issues-focussed organization.

regarding wishy washy one-size-fits-all annual reviews:

one of my favorite sayings my daughter came up with:

"could you be a little more vague about that?"

LOL !!!

this 'annual review' phonomenon isnt new, its used to justify increases in police budgets for example (alarum!!!! alarum !!! INCREASES in crime !!! we need record amounts of money !!!) duh. if your previous budget increase came with an increase in crime stats, what does that say?

budget schmudget.

I quit the cop auxilliary in st catharines when I happened on thousands of dollars in computer equipment at the storage warehouse, bought at the end of the budget year, despite the fact I had protested for 2 years the continuing lack of enough RADIOS when I went on patrols.

it aint the lack of money. its hardly ever the lack of money. its the absence of correct PRIORITIES.

"I believe there IS a role for SOME group to monitor and reinforce the established status of women and forestall any "backsliding" that may occur."

It already exists.

It's called the "electoral process".

ET:

Actually, you just said something that points out the obviously ridiculousness of this SOW gang.

You said, "Human rights is a social and political issue and has to apply to both genders."

You are obsolutely right. And only now does it occur to me...when they say "women's human rights", what the H*ll does that mean? Assuming they acknowledge that humans are either male or female (unless they are into that whole "male lesbian" thing), how are "women's human rights" a subset of "Women's rights"? What's the distinction?

That question, of course, is rhetorical. But, it further highlights the absurdity of their "cause."

Right, EBD- these feminists groups have completely appropriated the voices of women. They assert that there is only one valid belief, only one valid lifestyle. There is no freedom of choice among women, for the feminist groups won't permit it. You either are a leftist, socialist or, you are 'not a woman', you are somehow 'damaged goods'.

Women's groups don't seem to realize that they have, like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm, transformed themselves into Authoritarian Masters and have, in so doing, denied all freedom to the 'animals' (women) in their domain.

I know their acronym is SCW, not SOW, but, it's tempting, very tempting, to compare their transformation with those sows, er..pigs..in Animal Farm.

Their mandate is out of date and out of touch with reality. Their mandate is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. They are operationally and financially unaccountable - this is unacceptable. It's our money. How do they spend our money? They refuse to say.

But we know, that none of it goes to women in need. It goes to administrative costs - to pay the salaries, offices, trips, staff, etc and etc, of those middle class women, running to various meetings (all paid for), writing reports on these meetings (all paid for)..and essentially, contributing nothing to anyone or anything. Other than their own bank books.

Keep the organization but give all the grants to Real Women and like minded groups.

The Bull Dykes on Bikes crowd would go ballistic - Mach 1 before clearing the tower

Woo Hoooo

the impact of communications technology:

SOW is indeed populated by educated middle class wymyn.

feminism has worked for them, they are secure and well paid and have the ears of those with their hands on the levers of power and indeed they too have their hands on the same levers.

the internet and inception of 900 telephone numbers has facilitated unbelievable increases in sex trade.

the 20something models undulate to the disco beat urging male callers (without clearly showing the flat rate calling fee).

what about the rights of these much younger and I strongly suspect far less educated women? what has feminism done for *them*?

I see an unacceptable gap here between professional and working class rights and benefits strictly within the female sector.

what does SOW have to say about that?

so far no answer to my 3-question fax. I will advise if that changes !!

Well, I won't push my views anymore...why should a white, male, Anglo-saxon Protestant worry about women's rights anyway? (/sarcasm off) ;)

My only parting shot, Kate, would be...if (for example) Sharia law were passed, the electoral process wouldn't help those who would be subject to it.

Here's another example of funded diminishing usefulness, HUD. Why hasn't HUD disappeared as a cabinet? There is no federal bureaucratic oversight needed anymore for fair housing.

One is my favorite pet peeves is the entrenched gender studies curriculum dominated by militant lesbians with big time political agendas. No one dare take them to task. They spout with impunity whatever advances their agenda. No empirical evidence is needed. The amount of power they wield is huge, as Larry Summers found out.

The two big obstacles in ever reversing so much of this nonsense is that the MSM, who set the agenda for political debate, refuses to give equal time and value to conservative voices and too many conservative politicians are spineless unprincipled poll driven sheeple.

SOW is just another socialist scheme to get hardworking Canadians to fund the left's agenda in Canada. If there is one thing socialists love, it is spending other people's hard earned money. If there is so much support for SOW, let private charity support it (like other women's groups such as REAL Women, etc.).

Hassle,
The electoral process means we elect, re-elect or toss out those who pass the laws. If a law imposing sharia was passed, the electorate would get rid of them and elect those who would scrap the law.

Thus, the electoral process would help those subject to sharia law. Very basic principle of democracy this elction thing. You may want to read up on it.
enough

If SOW was serious about what it says is its mandate:

"SWC focuses its work in three areas: improving women's economic autonomy and well-being, eliminating systemic violence against women and children, and advancing women's human rights."

then their NUMBER ONE PRIORITY would be encouraging marriage, encouraging couples to stay together, and supporting two-parent families.

The fact that not only do they NOT support these initiatives but encourage family break ups (they were great supporters of 'no-fault' divorce, which actually means 'no responsibility/no accountability' divorce) is a glaring indictment of their seriousness to improve the lot of women and children.

One of the main reasons women and children live in poverty is marriage breakdown; single mother/fatherless homes pretty much ensure that children will live in poverty and that life will be really tough for the single mom. I grew up in a single parent home, so I know. All SOW and other radical feminist groups do when they run anti-poverty programs is put a bandaid on a gaping wound. Surgery is needed, in the form of encouragement of and support for stable marriages and intact two-parent families.

Why? Because intact, stable families also ensure against domestic violence, as a very large percentage of abused children are not abused by their own father, but by stepfathers and boyfriends.

What's it going to take for women and children to get the genuine support they need, not some radical feminist Utopian bandaid that only prolongs the problems?

Maybe a change in government?

The awesome truth-telling power of the blogosphere is having a hard time figuring out that Jennifer works for the Canadian Press, even though the article is identified as a CP article, and was carried as part of a daily news feed on Maclean's as on dozens of other publications' websites.

Surely you can do better than that, Mr. Wells.

Jesus. Skin that thin should really qualify you for a disability subsidy...

this is slightly off topic but goes to show the mindset of the left. I once read a column by one of the female contributors to townhall (I can't remember who) about an incident that happened during the last US election. she was scared out of her mind at being followed in her car while on her way to meet some friends at a restaurant, after the car stopped following her and she arrived (very shaken up)at the restaurant one of her aquaintances at the table was bragging to the rest of the group about how he had been tailing some girl with a Bush/ Cheney bumper sticker. when she revealed it was her who the creep had been terrorizing the group was shocked- shocked that someone with a Bush/ Cheney sticker on her car was sitting with them. it seems any crime can be glossed over by the left except being conservative.

Liberal Critic issues press release:

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?type=news&id=11845

“Ms. Oda must come clean and reveal whether or not she will bow to the pressure of these extreme right-wing groups or if she will take a stand and publicly distance herself from their position.”

What "GROUP*S*"? It's REAL Women and me and some other bloggers. That's who's behind this. I am doing this on my own time in my own name and so are the other bloggers doing this.

Why would I want to do better? You got a simple fact wrong and your lemmings have followed you all over town. No big deal. I'm sure you'll fix it eventually, after yelping a bit more.

Enough: I do have enough intelligence to understand what the electoral process is, but thanks for your condescension anyway.

My point was that Bhurka-clad women subject to Sharia law (you know, those who would be directly impacted by the law) would likely NOT be PERMITTED to vote by their Sharia-law-applying husbands. So, the electoral process wouldn't be of much use to THEM...they would have to rely on their free "sisters" were to liberate them.

I didn't think my point would have been that difficult to comprehend...foolish, perhaps, but not difficult to comprehend.

"Why would I want to do better? You got a simple fact wrong and your lemmings have followed you all over town. No big deal. I'm sure you'll fix it eventually, after yelping a bit more."

'nother plate of Tender Vittles for said Wells?

Yes, Kate apparently overlooked a simply fact, but how about Ms. Ditchburn's overt politicization and selective publishing of relevant content, Mr. Wells? Would you care to comment on that?

You're a bright guy. Deal with the camel, not the gnat for heaven's sake.

Judge Ju, er Carole, has put the hammer down. Case closed. But, yer honouress, will there be an apeal? As PE said, once upon a time, the law has no business in the boardrooms of the nashurne....-

Sleeping sex ruled illegal
Posted by Snickering Hound

Calgary Sun ^ | 8-24-06 | Kevin Martin
Sex with a passed-out partner isn't OK even if they consented prior to losing consciousness, Alberta's top court ruled yesterday. But in a dissenting opinion that could send the case to the Supreme Court, one judge said the ruling will mean couples can't get amourous while one is asleep. Justice Carole Conrad said the majority decision by two fellow judges will prohibit one partner from touching another sexually while the other is sleeping. "It is important to consider the implications of concluding that unconsciousness automatically means a lack of consent," Conrad said in her dissent. "It would mean that a...

Paul Wells wrote:
"You got a simple fact wrong and your lemmings have followed you all over town"

Is that a typo?

Perhaps you meant to write "lemming" and your finger slipped. For someone who entered the discussion under the premise of mocking the "truth-telling" of the blogosphere, it seems to have escaped your notice that I;

a) Did not disparage Macleans or invite comments on that vein, and
b) There is only one response I can see in these comments (currently numbering over 40) in which Macleans was mentioned at all.

How that defines that single contributor as a "lemmings" is anyone's guess.

Now, back to the meat of your complaint:

In my haste, I negligently typed "of" instead of "via", when identifying the source link. My bad.

If you direct your attention back to the top of the post, you will note this has been corrected, which is indeed, how the blogosphere functions as a fact checking vehicle.

(Albeit, a petty, nitpicky, irrelevant fact that I'd ordinarily not bother with, but you're an important Canadian[tm] journalist who is hyperaware of who works for whom. So I've made the correction.)

But, like so many in your profession, that's something you still haven't wrapped your head around. In your original comment, you actually demonstrate the very strength you hoped to mock.

Fact checking (I assume you meant by the phrase "truth-telling" as no one I'm aware of has ever claimed such status) is a function of reader interaction with the blogger.

And you, Paul Wells, have just shown a few thousand ordinary Canadians how it works. Easy? Easy.

If only the same could be said of the established media, the number one story today would be how your industry was sucked in by the faked Red Cross ambulance strike story in Lebanon.

You might even be writing about it on Inkless Well, yes?

Instead, you're trolling the comments section of my blog.

Not that whether the article in question appears under a Macleans banner or a CP one has any bearing whatsoever on the content of my post.

Because it's not about the content, is it? It's all about you.

You got a simple fact wrong and your lemmings have followed you all over town

Well, it seems someone felt left out of the ongoing substantive discussion and just yelped your-shoe-is-untied from the far side of the playground. So her employer was misattributed. Corrected. No big deal. What's that change as far as the content?

If some of the comments are bothering you, Paul, and you feel too inadequate to participate, why not really come out with it? But, I think you just did.

Ha ha! Paul Wells is a big ol' poopy head.

"Because it's not about the content, is it? It's all about you."

and the high horse he rode in on.

Just another taxpayer funded Liberal organization.
Always fighting the Conservatives on our dime.
The list is almost endless.

This whole Paul Wells untied shoelace meme reminds of a Fawlty Towers episode where Basil beats his car senseless with a willow branch.

But then again, as Chuck Barris once said, I like burnt toast.

Dear Paul Wells,

You are aware of course, that you've just been handed your ass by a girl.

Security

In old Get Smart episodes, when 99 upstages 86, 86 usually disappears under a cone of silence, while Agent 13 gets the couch.

99:"Never harry a career girl."

86:"I asked you not to tell me that."

“Several pro-Conservative Internet blogs have signed onto a campaign to eliminate Status of Women Canada, a Trudeau-era federal agency”

Ms. Ditchburn would have been more accurate if she had written that conservative bloggers have signed onto a campaign to eliminate the disastrous consequences of the Trudeau-era.

And after congratulating myself just yesterday on my ability to "cut to the chase", Kathy Shaidle writes the response I should have.

Kate, how apropos! Could you have proven the whole point of this thread any more emphatically?!?

McGuinty's proxy, Borys's buddy, has The Answer; More taxes. Motto: Meet You at The Gap.

The socialist panacea for the gwg: More, higher taxes; rob Jane to pay Phyllis. ...-

Kennedy proposes plan to erase gender wage gap
VANCOUVER (CP) - Liberal leadership hopeful Gerard Kennedy is proposing an ambitious plan to erase the wage gap between men and women.
cnews

"Kate, how apropos! Could you have proven the whole point of this thread any more emphatically?!?"

She could have linked to a cartoon featuring Wile E. Coyote, Genius, with a teensie weensie umbrella above his head as a rock the size of Manhattan is mere inches from crushing him into talcum powder.

I believe the box reads "Acme Newspaper Co."

Ah Yes, Audra Williams, the HARD-LEFT blogger who banned me from rabble discussion boards for the words 'I don't agree with abortion'.

Of course, Ms. Ditchburn fails to report that Williams is a lefty - something she doesn't forget to do when talking about "social conservative bloggers."

Also, it would be more appropriate to say, "...A Trudeau-era federal agency that is tasked with the goal of advancing..."

Ditchburn shouldn't assume they've been sucessful...kate's post is indicative of that.

oooooohhh...this is tasty....come on paul...we are waiting for a juicy response....

By the by, I read your material all the time and am a HUGE fan.

Nevertheless, Security's comment was truth/fact telling to be sure.

Paul (Chubby Inkless) Wells - a "blogger" (sans comments) who likes to diss the blogosphere from the comfort of "Maclean's" (aka "CBC in print").

I guess because it seems that I'm the "lemmings" Paul Wells is talking about, I'd better 'fess up. Here's what I said, among other things, at 11:30 this morning:

"One small addition which, I think, is relevant about Jennifer Ditchburn's slanted article in Mclean's [then I go on to say that she used to work for the CBC]."

"Mclean's has her on board now to 'speak the Canadian values truth' to the rest of us..."

"'Makes me glad I cancelled my Mclean's subscription a few months ago."

I stand solidly behind my first and last mentions of Mclean's, but admit that I am wrong in my second mention when I said "Mclean's has her on board now..."

Please forgive this layperson's ignorance, Mr. Wells. We don't always notice the finer points of publishing--like just who is working for whom. If I was taking Ms. Ditchburn to the Ontario Press Council for inaccurate and biased reporting, I would make very sure to note that she works for CP and not Mclean's.

On the other hand, when I said that "Mclean's has her [Jennifer Ditchburn] on board now," I could equally have meant just for that particular issue of the magazine. In any case, my mistake was not intentional--and as Kate has so ably pointed out, whether or not CP or Mclean's is to blame for Jennifer Ditchburn's less-than-stellar-or-truth-telling article completely sidesteps the content of her original post.

So, shall we get back to the meat of this argument, as we shoo the fly off...?

MacLeans = CBC in print......that one is just plain wrong...

As I said on the content of the original post, Harper government wont touch it till there is a majority, particlarly because you will get some distortions...i.e. socons etc, when much of the time it isnt so cons but "just plain folks" that dont want the money wasted....

It was built for symbolism, it may be torn down for symbolism and it never was about anything other symbolism....time to Move On!! (to borrow a phrase)

I will believe in its need again if Shakira does a cover of I Am Woman!

If you really want to see Wells at his finest, check him out when he's attempting to write aout jazz. It's embarassing. You can just see him, white socks and sandals, snapping his fingers and trying to get it.

I frequenly see P'Wells hanging around the jazz discs at the HMV outlet on Sparks Street in Ottawa - if I see him there today, perhaps I'll direct a "Nyah nyah!" in his direction. If I've first stopped off at one of the patio pubs out in front, that is.

Well, Paul Wells sure ain't Mark Steyn!

MacLeans = CBC in print

That's not fair - I think it's come around a lot since Ken Whyte took over, both in terms of readability and a lessened bias toward TO latte-liberal perspectives. Although some of the back-of-mag articles get a bit frothy and sometimes verge on advertorials

Yeah baby! I just love it when the SOWs and Pinkos get all defensive and are on the run.

YEEHAA!

Bunch of pathetic children.

Dudley: I agree---Maclean's is much more readable now. TIME Canada is awful---it is basically the American version, with very little Canadian based reporting. I subscribed to Macleans, then switched to TIME, and went back to Macleans. It is always good to get the perspective of our fellow countrymen(women) no matter what region we hail from.

By the way, it's Macleans, not MacLeans---heehee.

Just had to do it. :)

Dudley, Stephen,

While I might agree that Maclean's has improved since Ken Whyte came along, it still exhibits many of the CBC's characteristic socialist biases. Even Ken Whyte can't overcome Maclean's original inertia (e.g. "Worst President in 100 Years?") and its need to satisfy the CBC mentality of its original readership.

I recently renewed my subscription based mostly on Mark Steyn's presence. But my continued subscribership is highly conditional (and at the moment tenuous).

Thank you Kate for the best laugh I've had in a very tough week. Be prepared for Mr. Wells to come back and point out spelling and/or grammatical errors. (euphemism/euphanism)

Here's one for you Paul:

Pedant

My bad again: Macleans NOT Mclean's... ;-(

I subscribe to MacLean's. Mark Steyn has a Column. MacLean's is an exceptionally rational voice in an otherwise rabidly leftist Canadian media culture. Anyone who hasn't read MacLean's lately should pick up a copy. Honestly. If you don't believe my sincerity, visit my blog. I am hardly a person to defend leftism.

ET @ 1:20 pm...
Good summary of the whole situation.......

earl trossachs 4:53. Your comment made me remember Steve Martin in "The Jerk".

"useless...to the point of complicity"....

A very intersting expression, Bob, but beats me what the Hell you're trying to say...not that it matters...

lookout,

That is the most pationate and telling exposition of MY position I have ever read. Well done!

Hassle,

A well chosen couple of examples that illustrate the complete disinterest of SOW in the status of women.

A surprisingly civil BATB says "A very intersting expression, Bob, but beats me what the Hell you're trying to say...not that it matters..."

Shorter Bob: Go Kate! And anyone else who is pro-freedom of women rather than pro-equality. I just wish y'all had spoken up years ago; it's not like Fem-O-Fascism magically became a cause worth fighting for this week. For example, I would like to direct your attention to a blog I discovered earlier this week:
silencenomore.blogspot.com/

This guy is up there with Laurent from Le Blog de Polyscopique in my Public Policy Analyst Pantheon, in my conceited opinion, and he's been speaking out against feminism, with brillian analysis and little support, for a year and a half. Why haven't I heard of this guy? It's guys like that who impress me, not the cause o' the week gang.

See silencenomore.blogspot.com/2006/08/economics-of-child-support.html for one example post.

Paul Wells, when are you and your ilk going to ever learn that most of us pop over to blogs like Kate's not because we are "lemmings", but because we find truth refreshing?

Grab yourself a copy of Fallaci's Force of Reason and learn a thing or two about women who appreciate the truth.

Perhaps then you won't have such a silly attitude toward Kate's blog.

If that's all too hard for you to handle then best you stick to writing for the MSM.

OK I confess, Wimpy is a male.

I was brought up, as a male, with "Women and children go first". Should I die as a result, I had done my duty.

How does this fit into the feministas view of things.. Would they bitch about white (OK I am a white male) males brutalizing women in their rush for the lifeboats?

Yes, of course they would because the SOW is a self-serving bunch of governement teat sucking whores.

Just cut their funding and see how long their 'supporters' can continue to keep this dysfunctional organization alive. And while they're at it, why not pull the plug on Maude Barlow's self-serving group and others like it? Trudeau's dead. Move on ladies.

Hey, Wimpy, I've always pictured you as a white male. Fortunately, being in favour of authentic equality, I've never taken those attributes against you!

Many thanks for your kind words. 'Delighted to be of service!

Wimpy, you won't get any medal from feminists for sending the women and children ahead of yourself to the lifeboats. As a white male, your life is an annoyance every year you live beyond sperm donor to them. My God, you are a worthless piece of s--t.

Speaking of which, is Paul Wells(who, as an American, draws a blank down here) not going to play come with us? Another drive-by troll on the loose, then?

AXE that bunch of lib/left overweight menopausal bullbitches and their government teat sucking mentality. When I look around today and see the number of cracker jack women in business who needs the status of women with their hermaphroditic view of REAL Women. Real Women sure as hell don’t. When I look at our friends there isn’t one woman among them that takes a back seat to anyone, male or female. They are smart, aggressive, caring and fun to be around. They are truly women. There isn’t one that I would care to lock horns with as they can stand up for themselves, including those “lowly housewives”. When I look at my wife’s circle of girl friends they would eat that bunch of status women for breakfast. As my wife’s investment club group said, the status group is just a bunch of Lesbos hanging on to a job, probably the only one they can get. Amen.

Kate

You Rock, what more can I say.

Western Canadian, well said. I'm SMILING!

Good for "silence no more," Bob; you say "he's been speaking out against feminism, with brillian analysis and little support, for a year and a half..."

Well, you might be interested to know that I've been doing the same for over 25 years, Bob, and I'll bet a whole lot of bloggers on this thread have been speaking against radical feminism for almost as long or longer.

So, today's thread, for many of us, is hardly "the cause o' the week." Just so we're clear on that, OK?

is Paul Wells(who, as an American, draws a blank down here) not going to play come with us

Just what are you suggesting Penny?

Read the letters to the G & M, in "More reaction" above to see the face of real hate. The fraudulent, ignorant, altogether worm-ridden and orchestrated understanding that people have of REAL Women is breathtaking.

It's very scary to see the smiley-face masks removed from these "equality seeking", hate-spewing, pock marked bigots. What Pharisees (self-rightous judgmentalists) and hypocrites!

A substantially less civil BATB says: "Well, you might be interested to know that I've been doing the same for over 25 years"

I may have been born yesterday, but I stayed up all night. Show me evidence and I'll believe you.

"and I'll bet a whole lot of bloggers on this thread have been speaking against radical feminism for almost as long or longer."

There is little to no evidence to support this, which is kinda my point. Show me the evidence of "a whole lot of bloggers in this thread" and 30 year old organizations devoted to and proficient in fighting radical feminism. Be specific.

For example, by my reckoning our gracious hostess here at SDA has made maybe ten, maybe 20 specifically anti-feminist posts in the last year - and about 600 pro-war posts, out of, what, 1000 posts or so? I've had more comments deleted here at SDA than Kate has written anti-feminism articles, for one handy metric. Great blogger, but fighting feminism isn't her forte.

Here's an idea for you, BATB: perpetuate the stereotype that women are emotional harridans who treat data like Superman treats kryptonite, and eschew a civil and factual response with souced data in favour of something hostile and without basis in fact in response! Eh? Whaddayasay? :-)

Well, so to speak, Paul Well's comments about lemmings have pretty well come home to roost. It's both funny and sad.

However, returning to the Status of Women crowd, let's remember the lessons of history. First, and I think this is cronological, remember Lyndon Johnson's observation about J. Edgar (Silk Stockings) Hoover: It's better to have him in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.

And, of course, the Godfather: Keep your friends close. And your enemies, closer.

The cost of the Status of Women for the feds is peanuts. Especially after Mulroney. Remember John Crosby's reference to Judy Ridiculous? Keep them around so you can bash easily and often.

Check out REAL Women, Bobby boy. Sorry, but you're proving yourself to be an ignorant, pompous ass. Again.

Below, copied from REAL Women's website, this is their first posted brief:

"1983

"1. Women and the Economy - Ethical Reflections on the Economics Crisis
Submitted to the Ontario Hearing Panel
June 1983"

So put that in your pipe and smoke it, buster. Your preening, sanctimonious, empty-brained posturing's altogether unwelcome. Go home and play in your sandbox.

Some seething entity raged: "Check out REAL Women, Bobby boy. Sorry, but you're proving yourself to be an ignorant, pompous ass. Again...o put that in your pipe and smoke it, buster. Your preening, sanctimonious, empty-brained posturing's altogether unwelcome. Go home and play in your sandbox."

Wow, that's pretty hateful, even for a woman.

OK, REAL Women is one suuuuuper obvious example that everyone already knows about. By stating this you are proving, not disproving, my point. For our gracious hostess' benefit grow up, and stop being so emotional and hostile, please.

bob - don't change the meaning of what people write and then sneer at them for your false interpretation. 'Been round the block said:

"Well, you might be interested to know that I've been doing the same for over 25 years, Bob, and I'll bet a whole lot of bloggers on this thread have been speaking against radical feminism for almost as long or longer."

Then, bob, you changed the meaning to write: "There is little to no evidence to support this, which is kinda my point. Show me the evidence of "a whole lot of bloggers in this thread" and 30 year old organizations devoted to and proficient in fighting radical feminism. Be specific.

'Been Round' didn't need to provide evidence for their statement that they've been speaking against radical feminism for over 25 years'. You, bob, either believe them or openly state why you refuse to believe them.

The evidence for a 'whole lot of bloggers' is within the thread, where individuals have been referring to their long rejection of radical feminism. As for '30 year old organizations' - no-one is talking about an organization, but about individuals speaking against radical feminism for 25 plus years. I'm certainly in that group, but it isn't an organization. And, I know a lot of other people who have been opposed to radical feminism for just as long.

Try reading Christina Hoff Sommers, or Patricia Pearson, or Donna LaFramboise (the last two are Canadian) for some indication of criticism of the radical feminists.

ET says "Try reading "

Are women physically incapable of civil and rational discussion in blogs?

Seriously, by heterosexual male standards you folks are insanely hostile. We view pedantry, for example, as uncivil. Anyone? Anyone?

bob - why is a reference to an analytic study of a subject an act that is uncivil and irrational? Such a statement on your part is, in itself, uncivil and irrational.

Surely you can't assume that you 'know everything' innately. Since you don't seem to be aware of the opposition to radical feminism, then, I suggested a few books. There are also lots of articles in journals. These would show you, empirically, that there is a lot of opposition to radical feminism. Don't you want empirical evidence?

What are 'heterosexual male standards'? I've never heard of such a criterion. Standards for what? Lifting weights? Throwing a discus? There's obviously no such thing as a 'heterosexual male standard' within the operation of reason. So- what are you talking about?

Why are references to critical works - an 'insanely hostile' act?

Whew...seeing Paul Wells get eviscerated by our hostess in a few sentences was itself worth the price of admission. Where do I pay, Kate?

An analogy. A few years ago in Ottawa, a man and a woman were shot and killed in a residence by the woman's jealous former lover (a male). Accompanying the news report of the incident was a shrill harpy from NAC-SOW who denounced the incident as "yet another example of the on-going violence by men against women".

Watching, I thought to myself "What about the dead male? What was he, a hamster? Aren't we really talking about violence against PEOPLE?".

Ahh well, some things never change, it seems...

Given to not telling the truth, Bob, or is it just a short memory? At 9:10, just over an hour ago, you posted:

"A substantially less civil BATB says: 'Well, you might be interested to know that I've been doing the same [challenging feminists] for over 25 years'[sic]

"I may have been born yesterday, but I stayed up all night. Show me evidence and I'll believe you.

" 'and I'll bet a whole lot of bloggers on this thread have been speaking against radical feminism for almost as long or longer.'

"There is little to no evidence to support this, which is kinda my point. Show me the evidence of 'a whole lot of bloggers in this thread' [well, all you had to do was look] and 30 year old organizations devoted to and proficient in fighting radical feminism. Be specific."

So, at 9:33, I was.

Oh that, you said. Everyone knows THAT.

That makes you look pretty stupid, Bob. And duplicitous. But, since when has that stopped you?

Bob, here's another book to consider. It's from 1996 by an author who was probably in her 60s then:

"Rescuing Feminism from the Feminists
Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life": How Today's Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch with the Real Concerns of Women. By Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. Doubleday. 288 pp. $23.95.

Fox-Genovese is a professor.

Reviewed by Mary Ann Glendon [Professor of Law, Harvard]

[This is the start of Glendon's review.]

"This timely and well-documented book addresses the puzzle of why nearly two-thirds of American women embrace many of the goals of the feminist movement, yet say that they do not consider themselves feminists. What does it mean when a woman says, "I am not a feminist, but . . ."?

"The short answer, according to historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (who describes herself as a feminist), is that most women perceive "official" feminism as indifferent to their deepest concerns. In particular, they are put off by the movement's negative attitude toward marriage and motherhood, its intolerance for dissent from its most controversial positions, its attacks on men, and its inattention to the practical problems of balancing work and family on a day-to-day basis. Hence the title, echoing a refrain running through the author's conversations with a diverse sample of women: 'Feminism is not the story of my life.' "

Bob, as you need to be educated on this issue, I highly recommend Fox-Genovese's book. (Psst, here's a reason, in advance, why you won't consider reading this book. It's American.)

Once again Bob puts his foot firmly in it. So the amount of posts equals the cares and concerns according to Bobby. NOT!

If you haven't noticed, Kate puts up threads of a myriad of subjects that are of general or personal interest and possibly worth discussing, or even just outrageous. She practices what she believes in. As a sucessful artist and businessperson, Kate has made it without any SOW grants or government handouts (that i'm aware of). If this blog was a cause du jour one trick pony or a dedicated subject site then I for one would not be visiting as often unless the subject was of interest to me. Case in point is my blog on photography. I don't have or expect political or social discussions there.

Maclean's? Time Canada? Time US? Newsweek?

I started reading The Economist in high school, and never looked back. Once you read a newsmagazine that's geared to a college education, the high school level prose of Maclean's (and the others cited above) makes for thin gruel indeed.

Speaking of lemmings,

My favorite track from National Lampoon's Lemmings CD:

"Papa Was A Running Dog / Lackey Of The Bourgeosie"

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2094195/a/National+Lampoon+Lemmings.htm

"Mary Ann Glendon"

Mary Ann Glendon is on the editorial board of First Things. (www.firstthings.com); another magazine I read instead of MacLean and MacLean's.

Their blog is excellent. I was reading about Pluto, Plato and Wittgenstein today. At Inkless Wells, I was not.

Yes! That's where the review's from. You're a good detective, Clyde! I too avoid the fluff magazines.

"Yes! That's where the review's from. You're a good detective, Clyde! I too avoid the fluff magazines."

I have New Criterion, Claremont Review of Books, First Things and From Dawn to Decadence by Jacques Barzun prominently displayed on my coffee table.

It acts like krytonite when a superlib walks in the room.

Hey Clyde Wells, your name has a nice ring to it and I read First Things too.

First things, for those who may be wondering, is a reference to the fact that if you don't get the first things right (like, if your plumb line is even a tiny little bit off) you won't get anything else right.

I guess I'll just say a Novena or something for Bob. His plumb line seems to be the slightest bit off tonight.

"I read First Things too."

Perhaps we could suggest a story to some of the journalists who may be lurking:

"Those of us who read First Things could be accused of secretly hatching a Theocon plot to take over Western Governments and reinstituting ugly pantsuits and Marge Simpson hairdos for working women."

Run with it.

Where is Maynard Ferguson when you need him?

"For centuries untold, Plato was regarded as having won the debate. But the view that language is essentially a matter of convention, mere convenience, was given a whole new lease on life by the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein."

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=435

I look forward to not reading anything about this in the next non-issue of MacLean's, the magazine so nice I ignored it thrice.

The Wells Family is in fine fettle tonight.

EE-HAW!

Disinfecting Wells Following an Emergency:

You will need to clear hazards away from Wells before cleaning and disinfecting wells after floods and other natural disasters.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/wellsdisinfect.asp

This is fun!

Clyde, I know what you mean: Depending on the lefty friends' tolerance level, I hide various books and magazines before they arrive.

Thanks, batb, for your explanation of first things. Right on. A novena for bob. Yes, I think that's a good thing. Amen to that.

Oil, well, I love the Theocon plot: too bad my hair won't grow long enough these days for a Marge hairdo!

Sorry, I don't know Maynard Ferguson. I'll google him.

Good night. Sleep well.

"He hath abandoned his physicians, madam; under whose practises he hath persecuted time with hope, and finds no other advantage in the process but only the losing of hope by time.

Act I, Scene I All's Well That Ends Well, by William Shakespeare, Dead White Male

I can't believe Canada provides government funding for lobby groups. That is undemocratic and politically retarded.

And another thing....

Naah...I got nothing...

I, and thousands of others, have just seen/read why the powerful blogsphere is so important to DEMOCRACY.

WAY TO GO KATE !!!!!!! You destroyed that MSM-Political Correct hack, one Mister PAUL WELLS. And it was so easy, wasn't it Kate ? I am sure this will be seen as one of many turning points in the collapse of the MSM. The irelivance of Van Dusen and the PPG being another. Ditchburn, and the P-Correct just got,.. well,corrected. CREAMED.

I,60 yrs old, had a Mac-WTF sub for decades. Always wondered why when reading the spin-crap. Bothers me that it took so long to see the light. But then it was the Media, and Billions $$ against me. Hard to ground-proof the stories. well NO MORE. Thanks KATE !! so long PW.

I believe and have said before that the Status of Women Canada agency should be changed to the "Status of Valid Gender Complaints" agency. Add the few valid men's needs and remove the frivolous "women's" needs and the agency might well do some good: Adding the men would also remove the feminists and leftists as neither can tolerate the idea of treating males fairly.

Think of it: Solid work on removing misandry from Canada would benefit all Canadians of BOTH sexes. So would adding the male victims to the women's shelters and rape crisis services: Plus, adding the men to the women's shelters gives us, at minimum, a 10% drop in our child abuse rate, that is a BIG drop: Most male victim Family Violence (as measured by complaints to Police) is of the most serious L2 & L3 form, neither the man nor his children get help under current law, the ensures real and measurable harm to the children.

"A feminist sees men exactly as anti-Semites see Jews. This is because she is an anti-Semite—the same template, the same bottle but with different wine. She has a more hair-trigger anger (“Men are sexist pigs”) because she can get away with it, a more bellicose incivility for the same reason, but the same (watch, and see whether I am right) lack of humor, obsessiveness, and the characteristic basing of her personality on the hatred.

Haters seldom know much about those they hate. It doesn’t matter to them, and just gets in the way. As anti-Semites are clueless about Jews, so feminists are clueless about men. Anti-Semites know that Jews rub their hands and say “heheheh” and want to destroy Western civilization. Feminists know that men don’t have feelings and want to oppress women, and hurt them, and degrade them. Yet they (both) think they know the hated enemy. They both pour forth half-truths, thudding clichés, carefully selected facts, and abject foolishness, and both are blankly unable to see the other side’s point of view or to concede it any virtue at all.

I have known only a few such feminists well, though I have read many. They have struck me, without exception that comes to mind, as fitting a peculiar mold: bright, very hostile and combative, but physically timid and pampered, hothouse flowers really, usually from fairly moneyed families and often Ivy or semi-Ivy schools. Often they have done little outside of feminism and would be helpless out of an urban setting. They have no idea how anything around them works—what a cam lobe is, how a refrigerator makes things cold, or how a file-allocation table might be arranged. Their degrees run to ideologizable pseudosubjects such as sociology, psychology, or Women’s Studies. They seem isolated from most of life.

None of this is characteristic of women in general."

Well, well, like little Susy Wells, the Libs have awakened to the fact that there is a Conservative gubbmint in Ottawa. With their "call" and their left-wing whinging (H/T blahg), the Libs/Wells are finally admitting they no longer fund/control the pork trough. $$$$$$

5. CP | Liberals call on minister to defend work of Status of Women Canada

OTTAWA – The Liberals are calling on Heritage Minister Bev Oda to come to the defence of Status of Women Canada, in the wake of a pressure campaign by some Conservative supporters to have the federal agency axed. ...-
http://www.jacksnewswatch.com/

EDK posted: "A feminist sees men exactly as anti-Semites see Jews. This is because she is an anti-Semite—the same template, the same bottle but with different wine. She has a more hair-trigger anger (“Men are sexist pigs”) because she can get away with it, a more bellicose incivility for the same reason, but the same (watch, and see whether I am right) lack of humor, obsessiveness, and the characteristic basing of her personality on the hatred."

'Sounds like a pretty good definition of a harridan to me! And, of course, there are lots of male feminists too. To verify the above statements, check out the invective about REAL Women at the G & M letters at "More reaction" above. The vile misconceptions, poisonous slurs, and sheer hatred make the flesh crawl.

Mr. Wells, the Credible: I googled Maynard Ferguson, but my husband already knew who he was. (We've just been listening to The Hilliard Ensemble's Officium with Jan Garbarek: great stuff.)

Speaking of wells, Psalm 84 has this wonderful concept: "Blessed are the [wo]men . . . Who, going through the Vale of Misery, use it for a well." How wise. How resourceful. What strength! Women have been doing this for themselves and their families since time immemorial: Remember, SOW outfits are very new on the landscape. ('Amazing that women accomplished ANYTHING without them, isn't it?) It seems that official feminists have no idea about this kind of grace. Instead, they run, screaming, elbows extended, pushing everyone else out of the way, even kids, to get to the public trough first, where they demand that the rest of us fill it and then stand guard, while they slurp the whole darn thing, to make sure that no one else can have any. Speaking of the male "pigs" they disdain, this sounds like a pretty good description of PIG to me!

Well, Mr. Wells, the knowledgable, in all your guises, keep well today!

"Well, Mr. Wells, the knowledgable, in all your guises, keep well today!"

Thank you, from all of us.

;-)

OK, you've had your fun. Enough Wells bashing.

Sorry, Kate, but that really was the last thing on my mind. I hope Paul has a fine day. Clyde too.

Phooey, I was going to throw another in the "well". :) GREAT thread Kate, one of the best in a long time. Its too bad that libs have to sign away their sense of humour as well as their intellect when they join the party. Even good of Bob to illustrate that point for us.
Nothing more to add to the discussion about SoW, other than recommend spending some time rummaging around .gc.ca -there are quite a number of SoW clonoids in the librosphere. The accidental collision of SOW/pork as euphemism may not be that accidental.

Kate,

The miscreants have been rounded up, thrashed, and denied alcohol and food as restitution. They shan't bother you again.

Rest up.

Gwen Landolt, VP of REAL Women, will be a guest on a call-in show on CBC Radio, Saskatchewan, at 1:00 p.m. on Monday August 28. Last week she was on a CBC Radio show in Ontario. I understand they selected three callers with scripted messages, all in favour of Status of Women funding. Time for some Saskatchewan spontaneity, I would suggest.

BTW, Gwen Landolt is a really smart woman and she is a lawyer. When the press used to interview GL back in the '80s (the Probe and Fail comes to mind), they never mentioned that she was a lawyer, only that she was "fingering her pearls which were nestling on her pink angora sweater." Whew!

The left does not like smart women on the right. They will continually create a false image, so that the public gets the impression that any woman who happens to feel that motherhood is as important as, or more important than, punching a clock and running around like a chicken with their head cut off trying to juggle career and family is a fluffy-headed ninny.

They'll be doing it now--or pulling out every stop to make REAL Women look like dragons, trying to devour Canada's young. They'll be accused of being "anti-woman" (come again?) and "anti-child" because they believe in genuine choice and challenge the radical feminist worldview.

It's actually the other way around. So far, the feminist agenda, closely connected with the sexual revolution ("women should be just as free as men to have sex whenever they want"--never mind that this attitude when lived out puts females at great risk of STDs and emotional turmoil) has been the author of untold problems in family life. The feminist agenda is individualistic--women's rights trump everyone else's, whether it's a husband or kids--and isn't particularly conducive to the forming of a family unit.

Watch me get into a lot of trouble, now!! But what I'm saying is borne out by the epidemic of broken families since the '60s and all the kids at risk now--also in epidemic numbers: high rates of STDs, pregnancies, school drop outs, illegal drug use, suicides, and sadly, the list goes on and on.

Canada/North America needs to re-think and re-group when it comes to the real problems women and kids face--and they're not just those that have been rubber-stamped by the NAC/SCW feministas. It's just that the feministas have the lion(ess's) share of the money to network and push their agenda AND the MSM's support: free advertising and free propaganda.

The thing that's wrong with this picture is that it's OUR money, Canadians' money, and the feministas in no way think or speak for the majority of Canadians, women or men, even though they insist that they do.

Good luck, Saskatchewan. The CBC hates spontaneity. It much prefers left-wing, scripted propaganda. But, still, it's worth a try. Good luck!

Don't Poke Pins in the PC crowd's Sins ( A rhyme by OMMAG )

Seems like SOW
Is a Sacred COW

A holy of holies
To the PC crowd

I must admit
To see this SNIT

Has got me grinning
Just a little BIT!

Being progressive certainly includes those of us asking questions about the money-for-value of the SOW.

And now imagine the good timing, as there is a poll being taken, on that very issue, by those who like to think they are the only progressive bloggers:

3w progressivebloggers.ca/

Buffalo Bean: Could you check that link again and post it. I can't get to progressive bloggers...

Thanx.

Can anyone confirm whether Maureen McTeer was a member of REAL women back in the 80s?

Not a chance! I saw her on a TV panel in the 80s, definitely on the feminist side.

I remember hearing McTeer on a CBC radio newscast back in the '80s, in a piece celebrating "International Woman's Day." (What a condescending piece of poop that celebration is: EVERY DAY is woman's day as far as I'm concerned.)

She was championing the idea that the only way women could achieve "equality" with men was through economic equality, which is a crock. But she was a true believer back then and probably still is.

So what she was advocating was women's full-scale exit of their homes, leaving their children in substitute care to join men in the halls of commerce.

Easy, eh? Once women are making the same paycheques as men, everything will be on a par and that will lead to "Woman Power."

She, like all radical feministas in their rush to "women's equality," forgot a few things, however: What happens to the children (we've now got a very good picture of what life has become for them when there's no one home) and what happens to equality for the babysitters/daycare workers, Maureen?

Do I hear a faint voice--Maureen's--saying, "Well, it works for me."?

Actually, Bob, you could have EASILY found the answer to your question ALL BY YOURSELF: How about using GOOGLE and typing in "Maureen McTeer"? REAL Women probably wouldn't be mentioned, but if you read McTeer's views and then compared them with those of REAL Women--you'd have to do some easy inferencing here--le viola! you'd have the answer.

Re what BATB said: Although Maureen McTeer's a lawyer, I don't believe she's spent much of her adult life practising law. As a result of her privileged position (I guess that's debateable!)--married to Joe Clark--she got all kinds of perqy appointments. Her aspirations for women are perhaps all very well for women of privilege--though their kids are another matter--who are able to hire good help. However, for less well heeled women, her formula's a bust. (Not ALL women can or desire to become professionals who earn fat pay cheques.)

As ET's pointed out, official feminism's been very much a make-work project for women from certain groups, at the expense of their less privileged sisters, who, like their children, are usually more, not less, at risk as a result of the feminist philosophy: have sex like men, then chuck them, and let the friendly, caring government hand you the $. Definitely something wrong with this picture!

Meanwhile, McTeer and her daughter, Catherine, who's just had a baby, but's already back to work--a very part time media spot--will carry on as women of privilege always have: They'll hire other women and, for a pittance, will let them clean their houses and care for their kids. (In my opinion, this is a valid choice and often works well for all the women involved. But it certainly doesn't fit McTeer's utopian philosophy.)

Bloody hypocritical. But that's what professional feminists have always been.

I heard Gwen Landolt today on CBC Saskatchewan. She was, as ever, articulate, composed and full of facts. The host - someone new, can't remember her name - could barely keep the surprise out of her voice as caller after caller, male and female, supported REAL Women and their ideology. The host tried non-stop to trip up Gwen, all to no avail. Conveniently, the last two callers were decidedly feminist (I could just see the producer madly rounding up friends to call in!). Hats off to Gwen for another job well done, and hats off to my fellow Saskatchewanians for demonstrating the real (REAL!) view of feminism in our country.

Go, Gwen go! ;-)