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

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

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

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

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

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

Now the vote's neck in neck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lookout - you havwe a point. Noted.

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

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

bryceman - very good analysis. Many thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Western Canadian, thanks;-)

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

lookout:

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

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

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

Hassle:

Ya beat me to it.

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

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

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

Absolutely lovely is all I can say! ;-)

hmmph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go Kate!

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

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

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

Interesting, Bob.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's really progressive of you.

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

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

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

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

Kate:

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

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

Just pulling your leg.

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

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

Begin quote *********

A. wrote: "Things have improved markedly in the last century and a half [for women], but many forms of gender inequality still exist." No kidding?

I hate to burst any bubble A. may be inhabiting, but until we have a perfect Sci-fi, Utopian being, combining equally, of course, male and female attributes, we are always going to have "gender inequality."

That's life. "Salada," as they say in Central America.

Does A. think that men have an easier life than women? Does A. think that it's only women who suffer and experience "gender inequality"? (A pox on that damn fiction.)

If you're a grown up and you observe grown up men and women, you will discover pretty quickly that both men and women equally experience hardships/gender inequalities: They may be different inequalities but they're inequalities just the same.

If women and men work as a team they can offset some/most of these hardships. Example: It's true that when my children were infants, I had to get up in the middle of the night to feed them, because I was nursing them, and due to gender inequality, my husband didn't have mammary glands and therefore was deprived of this wonderful experience.

But did he complain that he couldn't nurse our daughters? No, he didn't. Did I complain that it was I who had to have my sleep interruped in order to feed our children? No, I didn't.

I occasionally asked my husband to rock our daughters when I'd fed them and couldn't keep my eyes open a second longer. He always complied and while I slept, he "held the fort" and settled the irritable baby. (I'd say that if your husband/partner won't do this, it's not due to "gender inequality," but to your having made a bad choice in a husband/partner. Why blame gender inequality?)

We worked together to overcome these hardships and our respective "gender inequalities"--and still do.

This feminist-initiated gender war is becoming tiresome in the extreme; it's destructive, it doesn't move anyone forward, and, besides, it's a fiction which is perpetrated and played upon in order for a very narrow and bigoted, anti-male segment of the female population to ensure that they get attention and funds to foist their unhealthy, vindictive, and retrograde world view on the rest of us.

Enough, already.

If these angry anti-male women want to carry on their charade, they can at least do it on their own dime. The public is running out of dollars and patience. And we've got far better things to do than be at war with our husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons.

End quote*********

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

:) you kick ass, Kate!

Female Progressive Blogger here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that mean you believe in evolution?

Just buggin'.

Pam says:

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

Pamela Bone: Muslim sisters need our help

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

IN Tehran in June, several thousand people held a peaceful demonstration calling for legal changes that would give a woman's testimony in court equal value to a man's. The demonstrators, most of them women, were attacked with tear gas and beaten with batons by men and women from Iran's State Security Forces, according to Amnesty International.

Iranian women may not travel without their husband's permission but they are allowed to wield a truncheon against other women.

Do you think women in Western countries marched in solidarity with the Iranian women demonstrators? Of course not. Do you think there are posters and graffiti at universities condemning the Iranian President? Of course not. You know, without needing to go there, that any graffiti at universities will be condemning George W. Bush, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (I concede Bush is easier to spell.)

You know, before you get there, that at the Melbourne Writers Festival starting this weekend the principal hate figures are going to be Bush and John Howard. You know there will be many sympathetic references to David Hicks but probably none to Ashraf Kolhari, an Iranian mother of four who has been in jail for five years for allegedly having sex outside marriage and, until last week, who was under sentence of death by stoning.

Thank goddess, as they used to say: a few Western feminists have begun to wonder why women who once marched for women's rights are marching alongside people who would take away even the most basic of those rights.

The latest is Sarah Baxter, a former Greenham Common protester, who in Britain's The Sunday Times had this to say about a recent demonstration in London calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon: "Women pushing their children in buggies bearing the familiar symbol of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament marched alongside banners proclaiming 'We are all Hezbollah now', and Muslim extremists chanting, 'Oh Jew, the army of Mohammed will return'.

"I could never have imagined that many of the same crowd I hung out with then would today be standing shoulder to shoulder with militantly anti-feminist Islamic fundamentalist groups whose views on women make Western patriarchy look like a Greenham peace picnic."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"womens issues" etc

recall my posting OT at the time regarding a recent issue of 'canadian business', which is now VERY *on* topic:

'top 50 ceo's in canada'.

all men.

every last one of them.

predominantly middle aged white, but nevertheless ALL of them men to a man.

howcum?

all 50.

imagine the statistical odds of that happening by chance. ALL FIFTY of the ceo's of canada's top companies are men.

arent they like, voted into that job?

methinks the voting is rigged somehow.

methinks you are a bit of an ass bobj

CEOs are not elected, they are hired for their experience and ability to make money for the company. Listen robertj, why don't you have a Pepsi and relax... oh wait, isn't the big boss of Pepsico a female? Imagine that.

howcum?

all 50

I dunno, Robert, maybe childbearing, its responsibilities, and the derailment from the Fortune 500 are a choice most of us females willingly make. And, bitterness doesn't seem to be a big issues with most of us.

arent they like, voted into that job?

Dead silence.

Bryceman,

I am sorry - I did not respond specifically to you. My frustrations are from what I see from both the left and the right. In terms of equality for women, the biggest hurdle in my view is violence. I am also more interested in seeing equality in the private sphere than the public sphere - I would like to see more men participating in the care of children and older persons.

I am so, so, so tired of people saying that feminists act like victims. It is time to focus on what is good and works for PEOPLE.

Let me tell you quickly about a show I saw recently - an episode of Wipe Swap. A couple where the woman stayed at home and the man worked swapped with a couple where the woman worked and the man stayed at home. Well, in the case of the more "traditional" couple, the man was asked by the new spouse to take on more care for the children. This big, burly man wept after dropping his kids off at school for the first time ever.

Maybe, men and women will never be identical, but when spheres are divided so strictly everyone loses out.

p.s. I have only taken one women's studies course in my life and one of the two textbooks focused on men's issues.

polly you can't be a mother otherwise you wouldn't be questioning the value of one. drop the liberal/feminist/hatetheworld spew, get off your high horse and get a life..maybe have a baby or two

Polly, Lookout made an excellent point earlier today.

"The government funded feminists have always rejected REAL Women and treated them in the most disrespectful and discriminatory way."

If there's any "hostility" from REAL women, it's fostered by how other -less- representative women's organizations have relentlessly tried to marginalize them.

ps - Re: "I would like to see more men participating in the care of children and older persons."

How do you propose this might happen? Do you see it being mandated by government?

I would prefer a change in the tax system that allows -a- parent to stay how with their children. It's up to the couple to decide who would stay.

Polly Jones, you said, "p.s. I have only taken one women's studies course in my life and one of the two textbooks focused on men's issues."

Please tell sda readers the titles of these books, because, my dear, I have to say I am having difficulty believing this to be true. In fact, I've never seen a text book focusing on "men's issues" and wonder what "men's issues" could mean, especially in a Women's Studies course. I am intrigued.

Then you say, "In terms of equality for women, the biggest hurdle in my view is violence." It sounds to me that you're either a) reading too many feminist brochures or b) watching too much TV--or both.

What violence? Granted, there has always been domestic violence, as human beings are, after all, human, and we do get into fights. But what violence, specifically, are you referring to?

"Violence against women" has long been a buzzword in feminist circles for getting government funding for their programs, which as ET has pointed out, operate to make-work for the feminists themselves, and to paint men as the violent ones. Studies have proven that women are just as likely to be violent towards men as men are towards women. Of course, because men are physically stronger, as a rule, women are usually more badly hurt. I don't think you can blame this on "gender inequality," however. It's just the way the world is.

The fact is, Polly, we don't live in a Utopian world, which is the only kind of world, it seems, that the feminists are willing to accept. Every gap has to be filled, every difference has to be made up, every last attribute males have must be duplicated in women--or else someone has to pay.

And in Canada, that someone is the taxpayer, over, and over, and over again. But the reality is, there is no way that all of the differences and inequalities between males and females are ever going to be legislated or government-granted away. This works well for the feminists because they can always say, "we have a long way to go," meaning that one or two of the 20-item list hasn't been checked off.

But for most of us, we can see that women's equality of opportunity (hats off bryceman) has vastly improved, and where there's still room for improvement, for both women and men, that's where grace--and being a grown up--comes in.

Robert,

I think there could be policies like tax benefits that valued care for children. Certainly, it would be up to couples as to who would stay home. But, I think that more equal sharing would be beneficial to both adults as well as children.

That's me done on here...some of you are simply nasty, nasty, nasty. It's hard for me to belive you're so equal and happy when you are so obviously brimming with anger.

Polly:

OK. But, I'm still not seeing the problem that requires any action.

You say, "In terms of equality for women, the biggest hurdle in my view is violence."

I don't understand what that means. But, I will risk it and go ahead and assume that you are saying that you don't like what you hear about some men abusing their spouse's or significant other. OK. I would agree that there are problems with violence of this sort...and it is certainly not acceptable. But, violence is against the law already - and has been for a long time. I would agree that there was a time - not too long ago - where people would turn a blind eye to a woman who people knew was being abused. But, I would suggest that that is not an issue ta women's rights. Children (male and female) experience physical abuse.

A man who uses his size and strength to beat on anyone - wife, kids, guy at the local bar - is a criminal - pure and simple. You would be right in saying that husbands abuse wives far more frequently than the reverse. But, I'm pretty sure you will find that the rates of women abusing their children is right on par with men.

Men abusing women more often than the reverse is all about size and ability. But, the problem of violence is not an evil man versus innocent woman problem.

Mothers and fathers should teach their children ways other than violence. That way, both sons and daughters do not grow up to abuse or be the victims of abuse. That is a valid social topic of discussion.

But, I respectfully submit that this is not a "women's rights" issue. Are you saying that you would like to see women have the right to not be abused. I think that they already have that. What else is there to lobby for that would justify a group like SOW to get copious amounts of government (your and my) cash? Where is the empirical evidence to show that groups like this have done anything.

You say that you are "tired of people saying that feminists act like victims."

The original feminist movement was about opening the doors of opportunity to women. It was about saying "women don't need to be coddled - they can take it in the real world".

But, modern feminism does seem to say that it is not enough to have the same opportunities as men. It is now about changing the rules so that women can get the same result as opposed to opportunity. This is where I get annoyed. By the way, many of the "original" feminists from the early part of the 1900's started writing pieces in the 1980's expressing their disgust at what the movement had shifted towards. In their day, they were trying to tell men to treat them as equals while, from the 1960's onward, the "new" feminists were portraying women as victims of men.

Did you know that, in California, there is a push to pass a law where a man can face prison if he asks a woman out more than once (if she said "no" the first time)? My wife said "no" the first time I asked her out. I had to charm her more I guess. I shudder to think what could have happened to me if the "new feminists" get their way.

Did you know that, in Toronto (1990 - I think) a professor was suspended and made to take a month's sensitivity training because several female students accused him of "ogling" them?

I believe that the original feminists were right. Women can take it. Don't you think that the average woman is strong enough to deal with the horror of a man asking her out more than once? Does it not sound reasonable to say that those university students should have been mature enough to deal with a man looking at them? Don't you think that, if instead of a university professor, it was Russel Crowe ogling them, that they would have been pushing each other out of the way so he could get a better angle?

Not according to the feminists. If you are a well-meaning person, I can understand you getting annoyed with categorizing all people who call themselves "feminists" as victims. But, today, it would seem that the overwhelming majority of modern feminists need that designation. By the way, don't your concerns about violence portray women as the archetype "victims of violence"?

As far as the rest of it goes...you want to see men taking a bigger role in child-rearing and helping the elderly. Well, we can't do much about that. Every husband and wife team has a different set of priorities and trade offs. In my home, I do 70% of the cooking (because I like it - not because I have a treaty with my wife) and 90% of the ironing. I still refer to it as "woman's work" (with a smirk - since I am the one who does it). My wife takes responsibility for 90% of the feeding of our child because she is nursing. The arrangement works for us. No one has a right to tell us how to manage these things - not SOW - not the government - not anyone.

You may like to see things different. But you cannot deny people the ability to choose what works best for them. And I am fair here because I would not dare try to tell you how to manage your life and responsibilities.

So, you see, while you might have some valid concerns about social issues...I don't see how any of them are "women's rights" that need addressing in that vein. The days of women not being able to vote, hold public office, sue, or be sued are long gone. There is no where else to go on the issue of rights.

If some women choose to pursue certain social awareness topics, I have no problem with that. But, I don't want it done on my dime...with no accountability. Let them set up their organizations and live off of the support of those who really support them. And my views are consistent because I don't advocate tax dollars being used to fund groups that support my political views either.

I'm sorry, Polly. I understand that some things bother you. I just don't see where the justification for tax-payer funded intervention comes in and I don't see how these are "women's rights issues."

That a girl Kate! Good one.....

Polly: I like your level-headedness and ability to engage in actual productive discussion. I checked out your blog too, and it's pretty cool. I have to say, I rate you as a Grade A intelligent individual, and it's refreshing to see someone like you around.

Poor Polly: "That's me done on here...some of you are simply nasty, nasty, nasty. It's hard for me to belive you're so equal and happy when you are so obviously brimming with anger."

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

And I only asked 'her' what books 'she' was referring to and to please be specific about the "violence" 'she' was referencing.

Poor thing. I guess 'she' thought 'she' could just pepper us all with unsubstantiated feminist dogma and that would be enough to convince us. Asking for proof of Ms. Jones' talking points has revealed that we're all actually "nasty, nasty, nasty," and "brimming with anger."

Well, Pretty Polly, I guess if you can't stand the heat, you'd best get out of the kitchen. Oh, BTW, here's a hanky, honey.

Polly, what a non-sequitur. You arrived and challenged people here. Fair enough. I think your concerns have been treated with concern and respect. You certainly seemed to be a sincere person, willing to dialogue, not the usual feminist harridan.

Then, after what seemed to me a civil, intelligent dialogue, where you were sometimes challenged and questioned--yuo did that too--your mask came off. You hissed, "That's me done on here...some of you are simply nasty, nasty, nasty. It's hard for me to belive [sic] you're so equal and happy [who said that?] when you are so obviously brimming with anger."

Come again? On what grounds?

You have abused the hospitality extended to you by so many at sda. I'm sorry that you're apparently so consumed with rage that all you've done is project that here. I'd say that the angriest and most nasty post on this thread is the last one you made.

It seems to me that your little diatribe was probably already written before you started your sojourn here, and that you were determined to use it no matter what. Then, without provocation--maybe that's why you're so angry-- you did. Not a good way to make your case, Polly.

Polly Jones' blog's burning question of the day:

Do You Really Want Your Pubic Hair Shaped Like a Lightening (sic) Bolt?" (Lightning is spelled without an "e".)

Polly gets her news every day from:

rabble.ca
WorldPressl.org
WorldNews
The New York Times
The Globe and Mail
Reuters
CNN
CBC
BBC
Alternet
Aljazeera.Net

Oh well. I don't think Polly was a bad person...certainly not one of the usual leftist trolls we often see. I would assume that she's probably young (because she didn't display the normal jaded, vicious, name-calling attitude that we've seen before) and well meaning. Just hasn't looked at the picture without it being colored by the left.

That's the intoxicating nature of liberalism. It all feels good. Symbolism over substance. Just say "yes" to every idea. Frame everything under the heading of "rights issues." Don't ask any serious questions and, above all, don't think.

Women's right, children's rights, animal rights - who could have a problem with "rights" issues? Only the cold evil conservatives ("neo-cons") - that's who.

And to all of this, a liberal only has to say, "Yes."

Do You Really Want Your Pubic Hair Shaped Like a Lightening (sic) Bolt

I know I can't speak for all the guys here ... but I really don't want to have my pubics "shaped".

Maybe a poll is called for.

Dear bryceman - Honestly, I think you're too kind--and a maybe a little sleep deprived. How can you still consider this person "well meaning" and not influenced by the left?

I've just read BATB's little expose on Polly and I've checked out rabble news: Judy Rebick's one of the founders.

Polly's a card carrying leftie, methinks, and every bit the unfortunate stereotype of a radical feminist. I'd have rather that she showed her true coluous at the start. Instead, she put on a little act to suck people in. As I said before, sda posters treated her very civilly. Too bad she didn't return the courtesy.

It's too bad, but I have to say, "Why am I not surprised?"

P.S. Thanks, bryceman, for your fine posts on this thread.

"Violence against women" has long been a buzzword in feminist circles for getting government funding for their programs........like the infamous bogus Super Bowl spike in violence against women perpetrated by feminists. Later, to be shot down statistically.

It's hard for me to belive you're so equal and happy when you are so obviously brimming with anger.

Poor Polly, unable, due to the filtering effect of feminist dogma, to grasp that the vast majority of other females aren't angry. Faced with a free and fair debate of ideas in the marketplace of ideas, those ideas counter to hers must come from a position of anger. Sorry, Polly, that's not going to work here.

Polly, you live a very sheltered life. I'm glad I and my daughters were more inquisitive, open and never hacks to the dogma of others. It has served us and the father and husbands we love well. Life isn't some lame zero sum game between the genders. What I or my husband achieve isn't at the expense of the other. It's team work. Denigrate him and you've denigrated me. Not nuanced enough for you? Not victimized enough for you? Well, pack up up your toys and run, then.

Hi lookout:

First, thanks for the compliment.

It's not that I don't think she is influenced by the left. She clearly is. I visited her site and saw her links. But, it looks more to me like she is "new". The links are not very "original". The kind of thing that anyone starting out on a cause would do. No advanced networking yet.

But, each one of her comments here showed that she, at the very least, wants to reach out and come to an understanding. I was only trying to help facilitate that.

Just like everyone else, I feel my temperature start to rise a little bit when I hear the same old refrains from leftists. But, when I hear someone as to try and find common ground, I will oblige them. If they come off with an attitude like, "you guys are just a bunch of [whatever] while I am holier than thou becase [whatever]", I take them to task.

I just felt she was more of the former than the latter. It might seem "too kind." But, really its all about acknowledging that we start off by agreeing that something like, in this case, violence sucks. And then talking about the correct solution or why this idea is better than that one. Or, in this case, why organizations that are only interested in their own survival are sure as h*ll not the answer.

That's all I was going for.

Further to the topic of sleep deprivation, I am going to go get some sleep now.

Before I do, however, I will ask a decidedly sexist question: Why is it that women, no matter how liberated, independent, career/goal-oriented, and free thinking, still think that it's a "man's job" to kill every freakin' spider that crosses her path?

So, if you will all excuse me, I have to go grab a Kleenex, kill an arachnid, and head to bed. Goodnight.

Thanks, bryceman. You seem to be a truly decent, kind person. Remember, Polly was speaking about you, along with everyone else, in her little--very intemperate!--temper tantrum. I still think you're giving her way too much benefit of the doubt:-)

penny, I think you've got our Polly pretty well pegged: adult toddler.

do you have children polly? have you ever given birth? I think not, otherwise you wouldn't spout such nonsense

"That's me done on here...some of you are simply nasty, nasty, nasty. It's hard for me to belive you're so equal and happy when you are so obviously brimming with anger."

We're all crying on the inside.

bryceman, yes husbands are very good with the arachnids--though I'm getting better--and things like mice! Isn't the division of labour in a working partnership (penny knows) a fine thing?

Good night, bryceman; sleep well! (And please give your little sweetie a hug for me. And every best wish to the new Mom.)

Ahhh, Yes! Polly Jones... We outed her as a moonbat last November: http://71.18.16.165/2005/11/another-calgary-moonbat.html

Bryceman,

I don't think that violence against women is a "rights" issue - it is a human issue. I don't ever want to have a little girl and raise her to be "equal" and then find one day she has been raped. Yes, women abuse children and men. Men are not at risk of extreme violence or murder to the extent women are. But, there are unique obstacles for men - shame of disclosing abuse, finding support groups, etc.

By the way, most mainstream feminist agencies now offer support groups for male abusers - which at least recognizes a need to help men transform behaviours rather than just saying "you're bad".

I take great offense to comments like I must not be a mother and:

"Polly, you live a very sheltered life. I'm glad I and my daughters were more inquisitive, open and never hacks to the dogma of others. It has served us and the father and husbands we love well. Life isn't some lame zero sum game between the genders. What I or my husband achieve isn't at the expense of the other. It's team work. Denigrate him and you've denigrated me. Not nuanced enough for you? Not victimized enough for you? Well, pack up up your toys and run, then."

You may not like my views, my spellimg, my news sources, or my choice of blog topics...But, I never would suggest that someone's views indicated that they are somehow unloving and incapable of being a mother or wife.

RE,

I have always allowed your comments on my blog. While you have been horribly direspectful at times, I felt that sometimes I got a better sense of issues that bugged you...and somehow it did help to advance how I view things. I hate echo chambers - on the left and right.

Seriously, Richard, you are so disappointing.

No Polly, that's not it at all. All these people truly feel for you because they see how brainwashed you have become from the constant lies being told you. You complain about "us" having negative views of your news sources. Many if not all of them have been caught lying and twisting truths. They show us photos that have been photo shopped and tell us made-up stories to match the images. So if you choose to ignore the fact that these people are and have been lying to you for as long as they have.....well maybe .... naw, you need to stop lying to yourself first.

polly I reiterate; have you had children?

do you know what it's like to bear a child? give birth?

well silly me tex, here I thought the CEO was VOTED by shareholder reps and other board members etc whose interests are that of the OWNERS and as such are a step away from run of the mill employees. you know, the *owners* collectively and individually having some DIRECT say as to the 'culture' or philosophy of the company?? ya got that tex? the SHAREHOLDERS *vote* the CEO into their position weighted by the number of shares they hold plus proxy.

and in a related point, CEOs are very often major shareholders themselves its one of da ways ya gits ta be CEO!!!

the company president and vice presidents etc are hirlings whose job is the actual day-to-day and month-to-month running of the company.

any more assinine commentary on issues you are completely unversed o tex???

and speaking of pepsi, do you know who the CEO of pepsico is?

and do tell o kelly-o, what makes you think the fact the CEOs of the top 50 cdn corp being men translates into *anyone* being an ass?

are the publishers of 'canadian business' asses also?

awww I get it, aaaaany excuse to sling mud and add your frustrated ass to the republicanist mud slingers. my my my. I seem to have stepped out of line and pointed out a glaring discrepancy in the profiles and make up of the top ranks in canadian bizznizz.

tsk tsk tsk.

I win !!!

On the wage gap:

Never married, university educated women earn more than their male counterparts. That's been true for more than a decade and is always part of StatsCan's data statements.

There are just shy of 26,000 job classifications in the catalog (if you ever have a free afternoon it's worth going to a Employment Centre and looking through the catalog, it is really quite interesting). In sixty some odd classifications women are routinely paid less than men. In another 30 some odd, men are routinely paid less than women.

Using US data, for PhD electrical engineers we see the largest gender gap of all with women being paid almost twice what their male counterparts earn (over the first five years of their working life if I remember how the US data is stated).

Trying to figure out the wage gap is extremely confusing: There are too many factors pushing and pulling the data in many different directions.

My favorite Canadian data set is the modal job, that's the most common job. For females the most common job is retail clerk and for males it is truck driver. Truck drivers get paid more than retail clerks and for very good reasons.

Once again --I cannot say this too often!-- we get the biggest drop in our child abuse rate by adding the battered men to our already existing battered women's system. We get the least expensive drop in child abuse numbers by adding the men! Obviously, most of the left and most of the feminists are opposed to adding the male victims: That would 'see' men as humans and too many strongly oppose that seeing.

Polly says, "Men are not at risk of extreme violence or murder to the extent women are."

Come again? If you truly believe this fabrication, I'd have to agree with FREE about the brainwashing bit. Please document this preposterous claim.

(And, in many cases of violence these days, it's because of the exponential increase in indiscriminate "shacking up", a practice feminists see as "liberation" for women. In fact, statistics show that this situation is one of the most dangerous for both women and their children. Some liberation. Feminists, smarten up!)

I'm a whole lot older than you are, Polly, and neither I nor the vast majority of my female friends and acquaintances, nor our female family members or working colleagues have experienced extreme violence or murder. (I do know one strong woman who was murdered by a psychopath, unknown to her.) I'm grateful that I didn't grow up with the many bogeymen that the state-paid feminists have foisted on our society: Men have been demonized, children are seen more as a burden to be disposed of--either by taxpayer funded abortion or state warehousing--and women are portrayed as hapless victims of male oppression.

This snapshot is so flawed, it seems that the only women who fall for it are the ones brainwashed by the damaging myths of the feminists. It's not the "patriarchy" that women and everyone else in our society need to be rescued from: It's the insidious and poisonous doctrine of feminism, which seeks division, exploitation, and supremacy.
Fortunately, fewer and fewer people are willing to be hoodwinked by such nonsense, though it's dangerous and expensive nonsense, to be sure.

And, Polly, unfortunately for feminism, it's people like you who give it a really bad reputation: Your disingenuous--to the point being dishonest, I think--arrival here, your spouting opinions based on junk data, and your subsequent, very bad manners have only reinforced the stereotype of the angry woman with an inferiority complex projecting on to everyone else. It may work where you normally hang out, Polly. But it sure doesn't work here.

Polly, you're back, so we can continue the discussion! You say, "Men are not at risk of extreme violence or murder to the extent women are."

That may be true in the domestic scene, but if you look at the statistics OVERALL, your claim doesn't hold. In North America, far more men than women die violent deaths, so you had better specify your statement, because as it stands it is very misleading.

Again, however, you have to 'parse' the violent deaths of women at the hands of men who co-habit with them. Married women are far less likely to be either hurt or killed by their husbands. On the other hand, common-law partners and casual partners are far more likely to be violent towards a woman and her children. And, in lesbian and gay domestic relationships, violence is extremely prevalent.

These are facts that too many feminists choose to ignore. In fact, feminism has never been a fan of marriage, which kind of gives away their bias. Marriage protects women and children against domestic violence, and a host of other problems such as poverty, poor performance in school, lower ages when adolescents become sexually active (putting them at greater risk of pregnancy and contracting STDs, etc.)

As long as feminists and feminist organizations ignore these salient factors in violence against women and children, it is difficult to take seriously their declared concerns about it.

IF you are seriously concerned about "violence issues," then it behooves you, Polly, to back up and take a look at the whole picture. Concentrating on the lower left corner, for example, is going to ensure that you see and deal with only a small and limited part of the issue. A broader perspective is needed and you might have to include facts that you don't like.

But "liking" or agreeing with facts cannot be your concern. Your concern must remain with violence against women and children and what changes need to be made in their domestic situations in order to improve them. It may mean your revisiting marriage and allowing for the protective benefits it provides women and children, not to mention the men involved.

Poll again. This must be wrong/skewed, Max. ...-

Australian safety survey kills feminist distortions
Max Ponti

Facts - the ABS survey has revealed that -

*

Men are more than twice as likely as women to be the victims of
violence and are being physically or sexually assaulted or threatened
at the rate of up to 2 incidents per second
*

Women are not the victims of family (domestic) violence as often
as the quoted 1 in 4, nor even 1 in 8, nor even 1 in 10, but actually
1 in 100
*

Women are not being raped every 26 seconds, nor even every 90
seconds, as feminists frequently claim, but are in fact experiencing
sexual assault - not necessarily rape - including both reported and
all unreported incidents, at a rate of less than 1 per 5 minutes. This
is a rate 91% less than that which feminists have previously claimed
* The ratio of female to male family (domestic) violence victims
in a home is not 99:1, nor 9:1, nor even 5:1, but is actually closer
to 2:1. ...-
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13388.12

Thanks, maz2. Some people need to get their facts straight!

I don't ever want to have a little girl and raise her to be "equal" and then find one day she has been raped.

Well, guess what, Polly, I don't ever want to raise a son and find that he was frivolously accused of rape by some nouveau feminist on campus as so often has been the case. You really think girls are the only ones that need protection from rape? Little boys get raped too.

Men are not at risk of extreme violence or murder to the extent women are.

Maybe not on Planet Polly. But, the ratio on any given day in our major cities for most homicides is male on male. The disproportionate gender of both the victims and perpetrators is male - and, the disproportionate family status of those males is fatherless. Yep, all of those male children raised by the single moms that the feminists so encouraged and endorsed. Filling our prisons to maximum capacity aren't guys with fathers in the picture.

You've revealed enough about yourself, Polly, that I suggest you get some counseling.

Ever trying to be enlightened I surfed over to Polly's site. What Brazilian waxing has to do with equalization of the genders seems to escape me. Yes, there are lots of other things in this world that need our attention but humans seem to be quite resiliant and adept at multitasking. I know I can shave, get a haircut, do my job, plan supper, think about the poor souls in the last plane crash and read SDA, all in one day. To wax or not might be important to SOW (or SWC) but not to most readers here. (assumption on my part)

To be clear, I'm not interested at all in what furry fashion statements any of the readers wear or not. That is definitly classified as TMI (Too Much Information)

I'm grateful that I didn't grow up with the many bogeymen that the state-paid feminists have foisted on our society

lookout, I'm with you.

A few years ago at work, I had to go to a sexual harassment in the workplace waste-of-time where I noticed something odd. All of the women in their 20s and early 30s not only had seen this harassment, every one of them had it happen to them. Not one of the women over ~35 had seen it or had it happen to them.

Maybe the older women weren’t being harassed because we were older, saggier, less desirable, but that doesn’t take into account that even when we were younger, we weren’t harassed. The more likely reason is that the younger women were raised in an atmosphere of “women good, men bad”, and every action by men towards women is suspect – what a terrible way to live. And it must be even worse for the young men to know that they are considered the enemy by the very women they hope to make a life with.

If SoW was really interested in equallity of results, we'd have to have women work more hours at work, do more of the dangerous and crappy jobs (like mining, fire fighting and oilfield jobs,) so that their health would deteriorate and there would be more women killed on the job (the numbers are skewed hugely toward dead men,) and we'd have to ensure we dropped women's life expectancy a few years to match men's lower figure.

I'm not holding my breath...

"Seriously, Richard, you are so disappointing."

Wow, I've disappointed a socialist/professional Victim... How am I ever going to live it down?

Yeah, Richard, smarten up, buddy! :-)

utter silence from tex on the question of how shareholders in a company have a strong hand in influencing the selection of the CEO. interesting.

utter silence from kelly if the publishers of 'canadian business' are assholes for doing an article which shows ALL CEOs of the top 50 canadian corporations are men. interesting.

heh heh heh. troll got yer tongue?

Robertj, your drooling trash talk will get you nowhere. The CEO is hired by the Board of Directors. The CEO may or may not be from that group or have shares in the company at time of hiring. Lee Iacocca was a Ford guy before he joined Chrysler, so I doubt he had too many Chrysler stocks or sat on their board.

Sometimes silence can be attributed to those of us who actually have to work once in a while and cannot not standby to wait for your next rant.

Oh yeah, get a life, eh.

Robert,

CEO's are mostly men because you have to be a sociopathic workoholic with extraordinary people/networking skills and a spouse who does nothing but host cocktail parties.

These people are almost exclusively male. They are also very rare. There are also only a handful of these jobs for anyone to get - male or female.

Au contraire; fat/flab should be a feminist issue. (Who is Susie Orbach?) Oh... Professor Orbach, author of "Fat". Thx, google.

Here is Aunty-American Minny on faaat with the ddddddssss....

"Obese means not just podgy, but dangerously, disablingly, distastefully fat, as in American fat." H/T Minny Marrin (UK) ...-

Obesity? This is a job for Supernanny(neo soviet barf alert)

timesonline.co.uk ^ | 8 27 06 | Minette Marrin
Fat is not a feminist issue, as Susie Orbach once claimed. Fat is a class issue. Rich, educated people are not fat; you see almost no children in private schools who are overweight. Fatness and obesity are directly related to lower education and lower incomes. What is sad is that at a time when this country is richer than ever and ought to have better schools than ever, we have far more fat people than ever — a dangerous explosion of flab. Last week the Department of Health issued a ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1691419/posts

Robert, if you can't comment without taunting others, I'll be more than happy to evict you. Clean up your act.

Kathryn, I really appreciated your post. Thanks.

It brings to mind an incident when I was about 16. My sister and I were walking over a narrow bridge in the summer sunshine. I was on the outside. A car passed us and someone--it was some guy--patted my butt lightly as the car went slowly by. (My sister and I could understand why--e.g., "Hey, if we slow down and I just extend my arm a fraction, I'll touch her butt. Neat!" Then he did it. That was it: a slight tap. A joke.

Today, I think a young woman may have gone ballistic. (I can understand because many young men now are really mannerless yobs.) What did my sister and I do? Laughed our heads off. I think we even waved at the guys in the car. And that was that! Of course, in this day and age, I'd say I'd been harrassed. Then, the thought didn't even occur to me. To this day, I don't believe I was harrassed. There was NO fear factor and I wasn't harmed in any way. As I said, my sister and I thought it was quite funny. "What a nerve," we said and laughed again!

Unfortunately, the serious lowering of behavioural norms since I was young--the feminists were among the major instigators and cheerleaders of this sorry decline--has, I think, a great deal to do with the whole harrassment problem. But, "Physician, heal thyself." Until the official feminists stop helping to CREATE victims by their moral relativism and laxity, as well as preaching entitlements where none exist--woe to the woman who believes the propaganda and finds herself and kids abandoned and poor--feminists have altogether lost the moral authority on this issue. What a scam: Help create the problem. Then demand government $$ to "fix" (sic) it. Actually, where the sexes are concerned, the feminists have never seen an inequity--real or, usually, imagined--they aren't willing to exploit.

(One of my definitions of harrassment? The "I could care less" attitude of many younger people--the "Whatever Generation" (I've got kids that age and love them dearly)--in service industries, when I need some help for a product I'm paying good $ for. Service? What's that? "I'm not accountable for your problem. In fact, no one is. Too bad." It's enough to make even a non feminist really mad!)

The CBC has always been too political. It is a mouth piece for the ruling government.