December 5, 2006

Who's Angry?


This story alarmed me so that I checked my books to be sure;

HALIFAX (CP) - Joanne Hussey says Prime Minister Stephen Harper owes her 29 cents - the amount of money, for every dollar, that Canadian women earn less than men.

It's the message behind a campaign she and four other Halifax women have started, setting up a website and distributing pins and postcards to argue funding cuts to Status of Women Canada will only maintain that disparity.

Well, as far as I can tell, everything's in order. Despite living openly as a female, my customers seem to have been paying 100 cents on the dollar. Now, if we could just throw a little salt on the advocacy industry leeches, women like me might be able to keep a little more of it.

Kathy Shaidle concurs;

Mediocre people favour "equality" because they aren't strong, smart or taleted enough to take full advantage of freedom. Not only are their weaknesses not my problem, but I resent having to suffer just to make life nicer for them. Women Are Angry don't see the elementary irony of their position: they're complaining, falsely, that women earn less money than men -- and want to campaign for the elimination of this imaginary injustice by taking MY money away from me, by force of law, through taxation.

And they wonder why some men still treat us like dummies.

You can contact these angry women here. Be sure to tell them you're angry!

Related - Defend Canada is launching a Conservative Women's Network Blogroll.

Here's another useful site for angry women to send their support. And there's lots of pink, so we know it's just for us gals!

Posted by Kate at December 5, 2006 3:14 PM

Maybe with that 29 cents she could have gotten a web designer course :-) BTW we are glad you are living openly as a female.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at December 5, 2006 2:23 PM

ok...i have checked with my wife, my mother, my 3 daughters, my four sisters, my 2 sisters in law, my mother in law and my 10 female cousins.....not one of them is mad at a matter of fact, most of them are quite happy....monthly cheque to help with daycare(they all gave up on waiting for the librano promised spots), can write off kid's sports, reduction in GST, standing up to human rights abusers, protecting women in afghanistan...

Posted by: kingstonlad at December 5, 2006 2:24 PM

For a true leftist, equality in the eyes of the law means nothing. They want economic eqiality. We all know what that means, right Uncle Joe?

On a close topic, have you seen any of those lame UN commercials promtin "whilred peas" on TV where the lion is chasing a zebra and then suddenly they break out into a game of soccer? What the heck is the lion supposed to eat for dinner? The soccer ball? I suppose the ball is made from hemp too. Anyone care to take a guess on how much oil-for-food millions were sepnt on this crap?

Posted by: Doug at December 5, 2006 2:26 PM

Stephen should pay her the 29cents , its a great price for a "nice big cup of shut the f... up"

Posted by: cal2 at December 5, 2006 2:26 PM

Ironically, they are "entirely funded by its founding members". They seem proud of that, yet don't think the Status of Women Canada group should be the same.

Posted by: Daryl at December 5, 2006 2:26 PM

Well, if they're angry, they must be right eh? In today's culture, hurt feelings is the best evidence of rectitude, right?

Minor quibble on Kathys remark:
they're complaining, falsely, that women earn less money than men

That in fact is not a false claim; per capita earnings for women across the work force are indeed lower than those of men.

However, their conclusion that it's a result of systemic discrimation is certainly incorrect. Rather, it's a result of various cultural factors such as voluntary time out from more advanced studies or career advancement for child-rearing etc.

But of course many of these women think it's unjust that they, and not men, have a uterus.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at December 5, 2006 2:36 PM

I'll give this deadbeat $.29 when she gets herself killed in a coal mine.

Men work (on average)more hours per day on the job, take less vacation, take less leaves, die younger and account for 98 percent of workplace deaths.

If the roles were reversed, these same idiots would be going (even more) mental (than they already are) and demading to be compensated for the extra they put in. I guess they'd ask for $.29, eh?

Posted by: Warwick at December 5, 2006 2:44 PM

e-mail wouldn't go thru, so I phoned and told them I am an angry woman, angry at women like that homewrecker BS and groups like hers trying to tell me I should be angry. Also said the best thing was cancellation of the PIGS and CCP. I think I might have used some of my 3rd language. They hung up. We should tie up their telephone lines with go to hell comments. For their info, teachers in AB make the same money regardless of sex or sexual orientation. So do grocery clerks, doctors and any other service jobs. These women should look at the deductions on their paystubs to see why take home pay may appear less. Its the tax bracket you are in, and if you pay union dues, other benefits and most important hours worked. Time for men to get angry. Are any of those idiots married. I will pay her .29 if she will go faaaaaaaaar away. Hans Island would be a good place.

Posted by: maryT at December 5, 2006 2:46 PM

Kathy Shaidle is absolutely on the money.

I noted today that "It is an unequivocal truth that Utopias cannot be created without imposing tyranny."

Those 'higher beings' always tend to become 'lower beings' in their attempt to impose old and failed values.

Posted by: sigmund, carl and alfred at December 5, 2006 2:47 PM

I sent them an email explaining how angry I was as well. I also told them to try to equalize the education system too while they're at it. Wouldn't want one child getting a higher mark than another now would we?

Posted by: Erich at December 5, 2006 2:52 PM

what the women are doing with the other 71%

Posted by: cal2 at December 5, 2006 2:54 PM

No doubt upon hearing this news, employers across Canada will fire all their male staff and replace them with females to do exactly the same jobs since doing so will lead to a savings of almost one-third in labour costs.


Posted by: Road Hammer at December 5, 2006 2:57 PM


I think you've got the right idea, don't let fool leftists arrogantly usurp your gender and speak as if for all women. Let them know they don't speak for women and that you're offended. It's about time Conservatives used the foul tools of the left back against them, ie shouting them down, tying up their tools of business, etc. That combined with Conservative rational thought (ie what does the cancelling of sow have to do with women supposedly earning 29 cents less than men?) would be a deadly combination.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 5, 2006 2:57 PM

I guess they didn't see this story over at CTV:

"More than 50% of women hold purse strings: study"

"The report found that women are involved in making the day-to-day financial decisions in the household, with 55 per cent taking on the role of primary decision maker and 37 per cent as the shared decision makers.

The influence was even greater with women who were mothers, as 96 per cent of them held responsibility for household financial management, said the report on Canadian female consumers, prepared for MasterCard Canada by Environics Research Group."

Therefore, shouldn't men be outraged that these downtrodden women have such influence over the inequitable pay men bring home? (Using this thewomenareangry group's logic)

Posted by: Rob at December 5, 2006 2:58 PM

You don't suppose that the women are getting paid in Canadian dollars and the men in US dollars, do you? That would explain about half the difference.

The cartoon of a wailing baby depicts these women perfectly.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Jim at December 5, 2006 3:04 PM

At first I thought the website was some sort of parody. It isn't.

Feminists suffer from certain uncomplimentary sterotypes and this won't help.

Posted by: Bart F. at December 5, 2006 3:06 PM

My two bits, e-mailed today:

Yawn.... how boring.... how predictable... how socialist. Who the hell do you think you are? "Stephen Harper owes me..." you really mean Canadian taxpayers owe you a better standard of living than you're either capable of or are willing to earn, don't you?

I've been very happily married to a woman (how conventional) for more than twenty years and she's not angry - she's happy too. Perhaps that's because she went out and made her own way in the world. Too many people, whether it's those in the middle east or Canada's feminists, are too busy being angry, seething, resentful and pathetic to achieve their inherent potential.

You are what you are. Either be self-reliant and brave enough to make the changes necessary for a fulfilling life, or accept your circumstances. Quit trying to get the rest of us to say "poor dears" and offer you a standard of living to which you're not entitled. Here's a little quote you might try to live by:

"If it is to be, it's up to me".

Posted by: Randy at December 5, 2006 3:13 PM

Kate; Congratulations on openly living as an *independent* woman, capable of showing the world what these so-called feminists really are. Would that the media showcase the viewpoints of individuals like yourself!

Posted by: Griff at December 5, 2006 3:14 PM

Sometimes you've got to wonder at the stupidity of people... I sent an email:

Dear Angry Women,

It must be nice to have the luxury of protesting your inequality in the work force... What a load of BULLSHIT!!

Get off your ass if your angry, and get a better job.

I need sales reps, and I don't care if your male, female, she-male, a hermaphrodite, or a monkey that can wear a sign around it's neck saying "Buy this!!".

As long as your alive, and have a SIN number, your hired!!

I don't discriminate against women... I pay them the same as men, and I work them just as hard.

I pay base plus commission, plus benefits.

Get in the game, drive out to Alberta, or shut the fuck-up.

William **********
VP Operations
(***)***-**** ext. ***

Posted by: Joe Calgary at December 5, 2006 3:17 PM

Perhaps Ms. Hussey could try to square her 29-cent arguments with this:
More than 50% of women hold purse strings: study

The study shows that women are the primary decision-makers in households across the country. For a gender that seems to be so disadvantaged, Canadian women sure do seem to have a lot of power!

Keep it up, Ladies!

Posted by: Griff at December 5, 2006 3:21 PM

Kate - You are certainly one of the most prominent women in Conservative blogging. Will you join the blogroll?

Phil, Defend Canada

Posted by: Defend Canada at December 5, 2006 3:24 PM

Beat you to it this time Kate!

But I do like what you did with their logo! - cheers!

Posted by: AlbertanfromBC at December 5, 2006 3:24 PM

I guess in my case, my husband would like to have the $.29. I make more than double what he does - and I don't hear him complaining! These women do not speak for me either - they should put their $.71 to better use than whining, paying for buttons and websites.

Posted by: Don't Want To at December 5, 2006 3:29 PM

Oh my. That is absolute garbage. I'm all for equality and everything, but come on.

Posted by: Stephen Glauser at December 5, 2006 3:29 PM

PM Harper is exactly right, we now have equality of opportunity. That these wymen didn't take advantage of their opportunities or chose to not take that high paying, but dangerous/cold/difficult job is not the fault of men. What they want is equality of results, which requires a large cadre of "advocates" such as themselves to ensure that everything is equal. The gravy train has stopped ladies. Perhaps you should have taken engineering or business in college instead of women's studies or herstory.

Posted by: Reido at December 5, 2006 3:34 PM

Man... what kind of freak doesn't need a taxpayer funded bureaucracy to hand them their government approved measure of "self-esteem."

Posted by: neo at December 5, 2006 3:34 PM

Women live longer and enjoy a retirement that averages twice as long as a man's. Actuarially, women should pay a double pension contribution, but they do not. Why don't they get angry about that?

Posted by: John Lang at December 5, 2006 3:39 PM

Women are angry!

WAA WAAnnnhhh WAAnnnhhh. Crying and whining? sounds appropriate

Posted by: Barcs at December 5, 2006 3:42 PM

If these women can tell me exactly what Status Of Women does, what great accomplishments it has achieved, what great strides have been made over the last 20 years that is solely attributed to this program, I will gladly send them $.30.

I am happy to hear that some of the cuts end funding to women organizations to lobby. Always felt it was insane for a government to give money to lobby the government.

Anyhow...the whole idea that they feel they are "owed" says just about all that is needed to be said.

Posted by: Ownshook at December 5, 2006 3:43 PM

I think we need a new acronym for these whiners!C'mon kids,put your heads together and let's play.Just off top of my head,I'm thinkin we could refer to any of these complaints as a "STRONACH"
Harpies,..or a "MINNA"

Posted by: Sammy at December 5, 2006 3:45 PM

Funny how this thing started in the welfare state of the Maritimes. They are entitled, you know. Nothing scares a welfare bum worse than the threat of being cut off from the government tit. (BTW, I am an ex-Maritime welfare bum)

Posted by: Justthinkin at December 5, 2006 3:52 PM

Too bad they don't publish the e-mails received, I mean all of them, not the one or two in favor of them. A few years ago, the teachers in our area went on strike. Set up a hot line in Lethbridge, at a fancy hotel, which was not even in the same school district. I and another friend phoned every 2 hours, as shift changes occured. She would call and make a comment, call me and I would then call on same comment. The main issue was the women were short changed re UI benefits when taking maternity leave. They wanted the school boards to make up the difference from UI to regular paycheck. This issue was so stupid, as they didn't know that the more they received as wages, or makeup pay, the lower their EI pymts would be. It took my friend and I four days to get the hotline shut down, and that issue off the table in 2 days. Our first question was, Does the ATA support paying teachers for sex. Shock, what are you talking about reaction, and we said, in order to get pregnant one has to have sex, and you want to have our school board pay for sex, isn't there a bad word for women who get paid for sex. Working in 2 hour shifts from 8-8 gave us ample time to make several calls/day. Of course we also repeated it to those on the picket line, and anywhere the topic come up. Issue gone. Next we asked where the teachers lived, did they have kids in school etc. Most lived in Lethbridge and worked in the surrounding area. Our question, are you saying the education in rural alberta is substandard to cities so you refuse to allow your kids to be educated by those of you on strike. Also asked how they expected more money when they were responsible for denying our boards the per/student fee for the 100 students from K-12 they refused to put in our system. These ?s were asked of every person we called. Once we both got the same teacher and were asked, do all residents of our district think the same, we said yes. Strike over in 2 weeks. Teachers lost 200.00/day and gained a .50/day raise plus strike pay of 50.00/day. My point is that we can make a difference if we put our mind to it, so call that number often, block your number, and say you are angry at them not the government. Give an example of men being discriminated against, read a joke, just keep those lines busy.
My next joke for them is: they have just invented a device to make cars run quieter, and it fits right over her mouth.

Posted by: maryT at December 5, 2006 3:52 PM

So after 13 years of loony Liberal rule,it's Stephen Harper's fault that these feminists don't earn as much as they feel entitled to?

If you can't get what you think you deserve in 13 years,that's the definition of failure and your funding rightfully should be terminated.

Go get a real job and quit wasting everybody's time.

Posted by: Reginacon at December 5, 2006 3:55 PM

What in the wide, wide world of feminism is going on with these chicks? Get out there, girlies, and show em what you got(behind the hair, makeup, wonderbra, Botox, etc, etc). A few brains, a lot of confidence, attitude and a good nights sleep will get you where you want to go in life if you want it bad enough. Life is waaaaaaaaay too short to complain--go to it ladies. It ain't gonna be easy but you'll have peace in knowing you did it your way.

Posted by: him at December 5, 2006 4:09 PM

a few yrs back a friend of mine in a ont gov't office rec'd a tidy lumpsum from the ontario govt', she told me about it & i asked why did she get that, SHE replied that it was to bring her up to a equal pay standard as the men in the same office doing the same job.
that was roughly 10-12yrs ago
she now runs the office
In todays business world you can achieve the highest goals if you work hard, regardless if you are a man or a women.
There are many major corporations that have women running them now.
We are not in the 1900's, we are not in the bra burning 60's anymore,
Remember the ad
You've come along way baby.

Posted by: bryanr at December 5, 2006 4:13 PM

Last I checked the fee codes I'm paid by had absolutely no means of distinguishing gender, race, sexual orientation or age. If you do the work you get the pay. If not . . .

Posted by: DrD at December 5, 2006 4:14 PM

I don't believe that these stupid, ignoramuses truly believe that we are all going to get on their bandwagon??????what a bunch of BS......where I have worked, if you do the same work you get paid the same,

Posted by: altarboy at December 5, 2006 4:19 PM

Defend Canada - the blogrolls I have now slow down the site loading too much as it is, so I've made the decision a long time ago to leave it as was.

Posted by: Kate at December 5, 2006 4:32 PM

Just noticed the name of the woman who started this crap-HUSSEY. Isn't that a bad name for a woman.

Posted by: maryT at December 5, 2006 4:35 PM

Although your intentions maybe honourable your desired outcome will not be achieved.

It is initiatives like this that give women a bad name. You are acting like high school drop-outs. I am a respected woman in my field and equally paid, because I demand it! I research any new job and ensure I am paid exactly what the men are. I perform like a woman (which I am very proud of) and bring a lot to the boardroom table. I am respected by my male counterparts. I am a good volunteer and have several great support systems to draw from. I've been given several awards for my hard work and represent the top 2% of women wage earners in Canada. I got there by being kind, steadfast, relentlessly polite on issues and present myself in a professional determined fashion. I have raised 2 children whom also participate in society and life in general. Proudly married for 30 years and gain much joy from my grand-daughter. What we need are more women to work with more women in a positive fashion. Your site doesn't appear to deliver on that issue.

I feel sorry for you (organizers) -- no wonder you are having difficulty.
Women aren't angry!
Change the tone or your will attract nothing but harshness from all.

For shame. Be proud to be a woman! I know I am. Why aren't you? There are only five short stages in a woman's life. Birth, menstruation, child birth, menopause and death. Life is a journey so enjoy the ride. It's what you do in between that counts. Make your actions count and be a positive force not a negative one. Darn, I thought this blog site may have been great opportunity to network. Darn, darn, darn ... what a waste!

I would like to wish you well -- but how can I when you derail the fundamental principles I try to immolate?

Posted by: Louise at December 5, 2006 4:40 PM

Now THIS is inequality.

From the CBC website today:

The richest one per cent of adults own 40 per cent of the world's household wealth, while half the world shares barely one per cent, said a report released Tuesday.

The study released by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research, part of the United Nations University, emphasizes the continuing disparity between rich and poor.

'Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years and we think that is true for inequality in the distribution of wealth.'
-Canadian economist James Davies, an author of the reportIt took more than $500,000 US to be among the richest one per cent of adults in the world, according to the report. The richest 10 per cent of adults needed $61,000 US in assets — defined as the value of physical and financial assets less debts.

In contrast, 50 per cent of the adults in the world owned barely one per cent of the household wealth.

The bulk of the wealthiest adults are concentrated in North America, Europe and Japan, the researchers said. For example, North America accounted for only six per cent of the world's adults, but held 34 per cent of its household wealth.

"Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years and we think that is true for inequality in the distribution of wealth," said James Davies, one of the report's authors and a professor of economics at the University of Western Ontario.

"There is a whole group of problems in developing countries that make it difficult for people to build up assets, which are important, since life is so precarious," Davies said.

Canadians averaged $70,916 US in assets
Canada's net worth per capita came in at $70,916 US, putting it just ahead of Denmark.

Average net worth in the United States amounted to $143,867 per person in 2000, while it reached $180,837 in Japan.

At the bottom end of the scale were Ethiopia with per-capita wealth of $193 and Congo at $180.

Global household wealth amounted to $125 trillion in 2000, roughly three times value of total global production, or $20,500 per person.

Posted by: him at December 5, 2006 4:41 PM

One more reason to stop the funding!

Posted by: MaryM at December 5, 2006 4:42 PM

So what happened,Harper's first announcement when he became PM was all females will immediately have a 29% pay decrease enforced on them?

This is beyond being funny,now its just pathetic.

And Ezra Levant was on Adler,(i know,there was nothing else on),bringing up Dion's duel citizenship.Ezra said if it was Harper with dual-citizenship the media would be dumping on him.

First caller said Ezra was an idiot for even bringing it up,its a non-issue.Adler asks him what if it was Harper with dual citizenship and he starts calling Harper names and saying it was not acceptable.

I think these feminists and Liberal voters are now not even hiding their double-standard for Conservatives versus Libs/Dippers.

And watch for more of Duhlinda Stronach talking about this crap

Posted by: paulsstuff at December 5, 2006 4:42 PM

According to the SOW website, from March 2005 to March 2006 they spent $11,068,299 to:

- generate 5 reports
- and distribute another $11,268,852 in grants

Your tax dollars at work.

Posted by: Des at December 5, 2006 4:42 PM

Belinda Stronach the hypocrite whose daddy's company Magna has exactly zero women on it's board of directors.

Why don't these angry sow's protest that?

Posted by: Reginacon at December 5, 2006 5:05 PM

My grandmother was one of the top real estate agents in Toronto and that was decades ago. These women are bitter. I wouldn't be surprised if they're the women asking for handouts that I pass by every day on my way to school.

Posted by: William E. Demers at December 5, 2006 5:05 PM

I am going to charge a 30-cent account service charge for delivery of the 29cents.

I expect payment forthwith.

Posted by: shaken at December 5, 2006 5:06 PM

Looks like we already paid her. Many times over.

Always instructive to see how these people make their money. Every single person quoted in that Macleans article personally benefitted from the program.

And everyone quoted in the article either works for or has done work for Dalhousie University. It's three women quoted in the article and they all know each other! The article make it sound like the two websites are independent and based on actual women anger.

This is why cutting programs is hard. You get all these so-called activists who actually personally benefit from the current programs raising a stink each time. With an unquestioning media, you get an article by Macleans that completely misses the real story. And that Macleans story, you can read it in almost every Canadian paper across the country.,GGLD:2004-28,GGLD:en&q=Joanne+Hussey

Posted by: Peter Jay at December 5, 2006 5:08 PM

Kate; you have talent, brains and looks. Is it fair to expect these 71cent Husseys to compete with you?

Posted by: rebarbarian at December 5, 2006 5:22 PM

The only thing missing from these whining Feminists is a Burka and a Scimitar.

Posted by: Big Jack Attack at December 5, 2006 5:25 PM


How fitting!


Too ironic!


Posted by: SonsofMonkeysandSwine at December 5, 2006 5:29 PM

Louise: "immolate"? Geez, you MUST be burned up? ;-)

Posted by: Nemo2 at December 5, 2006 5:31 PM

Comments sent to those "Angry Women":
I am a senior who got $6 a month as a stay at home mother. We stayed at home with no credit cards to bide us over each month. Just a husband's minimum salary at which it is still under $30,000. We made do and have our home as our total asset for retirement. We all worked very hard to get what we have. Women today have it so much better than in our time. Today women don't even know how to cook. Give us a break and stop looking at the government for more money. Make your own clothes and go back to the wringer washer days as we did. Too many people expect handouts. I know for a fact in Halifax there are people on welfare that shouldn't be. In fact 4 generations that I know off. Enough of this foolishness - a hard day's work never hurt anyone.
All you people want are handouts.
I know you will all be liberals until you die because that is where the cash flow has always been.

Posted by: Jane at December 5, 2006 5:58 PM

I phoned the number given on the website also and told them I was angry. The lady said "good" and then I told her what I was angry about, that I was angry at them pretending to speak for me. Why do they say "The Women are angry"? It should be "Some women are angry" and they should speak for themselves. They seem to think all women think the same way, like cookie cutter cookies. She said the group was non-partisan and I said it sounded to me as if they took their lines straight from the pink book. She sounded surprised I knew about the pink book. I gave her an earful and then she said she didn't have time to talk anymore.

Posted by: carrscanary at December 5, 2006 6:31 PM

You betcha' Kate.... this Joanne Hussey is a career trough hog who owes the Canadian taxpayer for every dime she's leeched out of our pockets over her years at The Gander Women's Centre and wherever else whe has been receiving milk from the public tit!

JOANNE HUSSEY - is a resident of Clarenville and is a project manager and researcher
with the Gander Women’s Centre. She holds a bachelor of arts (honours) ...

BOOOHOOO Joanne go get a real job.... I'm sure with all of the gender equity programs out there you will find something that you are qualified for!

Posted by: OMMAG at December 5, 2006 6:35 PM

Don't you see, tax cuts are "useless". Spending money on this group (or any other such group for that matter) is......well.....useful.

Get it?

In our hands - useless.

In the Libs hands - useful.

A simple proposition, but it explains a lot.

Posted by: mitch at December 5, 2006 7:10 PM

I've recently commented here at SDA with reams of data which suggests that women are richer (richer as in "richer") than men, or at least trending rapidly in that direction in several age cohorts. Too tired to find and repost, but I suspect the male gender will catch on to this fact sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Bob at December 5, 2006 7:25 PM

...can't help thinking that Angry Woman's logo looks like a baby rattle.

Posted by: tomax7 at December 5, 2006 7:43 PM

Checked out the pink site...sent them a few e-mails basically sugesting that they 'go fund themselves.'
They have a bit about Bev Oda...she has done well...I'll guess with no funding from SWC.
And they have an 'expose' on REAL Women...they really should clarify that REAL Women is an effective voice because it is pigs at the taxpayers trough.

Posted by: vf at December 5, 2006 7:48 PM

OT but Global just announced on their 5.30p.m. news that Dion has dual citizenship. Some reporter had researched the story. Dion says he will not renounce France. Bet he does before the next election, even it is just in words only, not his heart. Kevin also noted that now that he is leader he will be under the microscope. Man in street comments, some say it doesn't matter, others are upset. Funny, this didn't come up during the campaign except on blogs. Like posted by many before, the libs and msm will not get away with their lies again without the true cdns calling them on them. How long has Global been sitting on this fact and finally had to bring it out in the open because of sites like SDA. Kate scores a big one again.

Posted by: maryT at December 5, 2006 7:50 PM

Well, it just made me angry::

Let me guess: You're angry because you are women? You are ugly women? No one will listen to your tantrums?

What's this I see, Harper is giving you 79 cents? That's 79 cents of my own money.

Now I am angry

Posted by: WImpy Canadian at December 5, 2006 8:03 PM

Ooops, that's 71 cents.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at December 5, 2006 8:12 PM

Is there a lawyer in the crowd who could tell us how we NOT ANGRY WOMEN could threaten this group with a lawsuit because they are being overly inclusive by insinuating all women are angry. I want their name changed to SOME WOMEN ARE ANGRY. or KOOKY WOMEN ARE ANGRY, or LEFIST WOMEN WHO BELIEVE THEY CAN LIVE OF THE REST OF US ARE ANGRY. I am offended by their name, and might ask for angry protests in the streets, against them. Don't plan to have carbques just yet.

Posted by: maryT at December 5, 2006 8:18 PM

There are a other things these women could be angry about,hair cuts for example. My wife always pays more than I do. Why aren't they angry about that?

Posted by: Cal at December 5, 2006 8:37 PM

The hypocrisy of these Perpetual Victim Hags is that a truly deserving group in need of their protection and a devoted website is the plight of females living under Islam - those real unfortunate females that can't vote, get educations, wear burqas as a badge of shame, are subjected to polygamy and genital mutilations, and have no access to wages.

Know of any femninists in NA concerned about their fate? Don't bother looking.

I emailed them requesting that they support Harper's goal of bettering the lives of women in Afghanistan, a request I'm sure is lost on these hags, shame and relativity not being in their vocabulary.

God bless anyone that cuts the funding, the oxygen off from these entitled victim whiners and their politico funding pimps. They've erode all that was good and wholesome about being a female and mother.

Posted by: penny at December 5, 2006 8:38 PM

Mary T:

We don't accept just any old screamers on Hans Island.

Besides Advent is the time of charity, and raving feminists seem to be short in this area.

They will have to apply to Judy Sgro or Joe Volpe to see if they can immigrate to anywhere but Hans Island.

Further, they are at severe risk of receiving coal in their slippers at Christmas.

Christmas operations are in full swing here and they will just make the sleigh runners sticky.

Yours sincerely,

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at December 5, 2006 8:50 PM

Do you know who's paying for this "The Women Are Angry" campaign: the web site, the phone lines, the pins, the post cards, the salaries of the women wo/manning the phones?

You are, dear Canadian taxpayer.

The SOW funding doesn't run out until April 1, 2007, so this whole one-sided hissy-fit fest is being paid for by all of the people of Canada: men and women, whether we agree with their petty concerns or not.

That's what's always pi**ed me off about these cantankerous crones--and still does. Their whole agenda, which benefits a tiny minority of women--the ones everyone on this blog has described: angry, whiny, envious, lazy, man-hating, wife/husband/baby-hating--is promoted and paid for by the vast majority of Canadians who the SOWs regularly hold in contempt.

Anyone e-mailing or phoning these whiny, wimpy, angwy women should ask them where they're getting the money to fund this campaign. Then tell them you're angry that YOUR tax dollars are funding this juvenile junket.

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 5, 2006 9:03 PM

Way to go Jane; I wonder if they bitch to THEIR Mothers and Grandmothers.

I'll never forget the time I made a comment to my Grandmother (Oma) about having three kids in a 2 bdr, no bsmnt. house. She said: "Ha, I had 7 kids in a garage."

Cured me.

Posted by: Cheri at December 5, 2006 10:16 PM

Maybe you should be asking $.54/visit Kate.

Posted by: Cheri at December 5, 2006 10:21 PM

Hans, if they go to Judy they must be strippers in their off hours. They don't work long hours as you just get voice mail now. Flood it will calls.
I told them to visit SDA to see what real women think of their efforts. Next I will get my grandsons heavy metal out and play it for them, very loudly. Sure glad I got a redial button, and the cost of the calls will still be less than I used to spend on those awful cig.

Posted by: maryT at December 5, 2006 10:28 PM

With the title, "I'm Angry Too", I sent this to the Cry Babies:

"But not at the Conservatives.

"Your acronym would seem to be 'W-A-A'. It seems to me that that's what babies and toddlers do when they don't get their way.

"The government programs you're worried about are not 'Women's' programs: that's much too inclusive. They're FEMINIST programs and have very little to do with the authentic needs of the majority of Canadian women, their children, or the men--often husbands--in their lives.

"BTW, the feminist groups you appear to support have nothing to do with equality: they do have a lot to do with entitlement and territory. The Old Boys would be proud of the feminist modus operandi: keep all the money (from the beleaguered taxpayer in this case) to yourselves and make sure the definition of equality is so narrow, only feminists will fit in. Then leave out any women who think independently from feminist group think. Le voila! All the money to ourselves!

"Child poverty? Linked altogether with children living without their fathers.

"Domestic abuse? Check out the statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and Statistics Canada. Married women are about four times LESS likely to be abused by their partners than women living with a male common law partner. Lesbian relationships are also the locus of significant abuse. The kids? Vastly more likely to be abused by a male adult not biologically related to them.

"As far as I know, no taxpayer funded feminist group promotes the institution of marriage--unless its SSM--which would seem to be women's and children's best insurance against both poverty and abuse. Doesn't your group both believe that these are crucial 'women's' issues AND want to see a significant decrease in both?

"Re child care: the vast majority of Canadians--80%--prefer in home care by one of the parents. A fully funded, drastically expensive, no-choice, government funded, institutional model is as far from what most Canadians want as one could get. Do you think it's fair to saddle Canadian women and their partners with something they definitely don't want?

"I'll be sending a copy of this message to Bev Oda and the Prime Minister. I'll also be thanking them for outing "SOWscam" and cutting off some of the slops at the trough. Hurrah for authentic fairness and equality!"

Posted by: CBC Watcher at December 5, 2006 11:02 PM

I think the "angry women" would be farther ahead claiming the "shortfall" from those adults that failed to instill a backbone in them, somewhere along the line.

Posted by: Mugs at December 5, 2006 11:44 PM

Whois shows who registered the website.

A quick google on her name shows that she works for the Atlantic Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health which is funded by the Bureau of Women's Health and Gender Analysis of Health Canada!


Posted by: carrscanary at December 5, 2006 11:45 PM

Gender analysis,they get paid for that?

Posted by: Mugs at December 6, 2006 12:09 AM

Here's the e-mail I sent off:

For the sake of accuracy, please change your name to "Some women are angry."

I'm not angry. I'm not even annoyed. I'm actually pleased with the Harper government.

On second thought, may I suggest "A few women are angry"?

Posted by: Michele at December 6, 2006 12:30 AM

Next time the hussies are interviewed on tv, wonder if they will show all the e-mails from the not angry women. If they don't you know that nothing reported is 100% true, only about 2% is.

Posted by: maryT at December 6, 2006 1:22 AM

What the hell is 'gender analysis'? I must have missed that one while in college.

As for these detestable harpies, prancing about in their ideological feces, I take solace in the fact that they must now live every day knowing that their little world is coming to an abrupt end. Expect more rabid vitriol as the full weight of their failed miserable lives begins to drag them under.

Posted by: missing link at December 6, 2006 2:14 AM

Just wanted to say that the graphic is, hands down, the funniest blogburst graphic of all time. :)

Posted by: Matt at December 6, 2006 2:19 AM

"Despite living openly as a female, my customers seem to have been paying 100 cents on the dollar."

Well, Kate, it would now appear that, thanks to Joanne, you might be entitled to charge 'em 129 cents on the dollar.

Let us know how that works out for your business!

Posted by: JJM at December 6, 2006 5:57 AM

Here is a copy of the letter I sent

I have been angry for years. I have been angry at the waste of taxpayer dollars by the likes of the Status of Women. I can't understand how a group of malcontents that represent a small minority of women has been able to establish such a network of money wasting organizations.

This website of yours is a joke. Do you have any evidence of harm being done by these cuts to SOW? I don't see anything but outrage and howling by a bunch of women who have never had to have a real job.

Many "Feminists" seem to think that by taking strength away from men they will make women stronger. Take another look. Nature doesn't work that way. No matter how much you want to believe it.

For the first time in my working life I am seeing a government that actually understands the battles the average person wages every day for survival. By cutting taxes and proposed income splitting the Harper led government is offering families real choices in how they raise their children.

Children who have a mother there when they get home from school are way less likely to get into trouble. Fewer teenage pregnancies leads to fewer single mothers leads to less angry women. I can see why SOW is terrified of the Harper Government.

So do me a favour and stop wasting my tax dollars with your whining. Your story doesn't add up. If you have any evidence of harm done other than to your own personal bottom line publish it . Otherwise put a lid on it and get a real job.

Rita Bourgault

Posted by: Rita Bourgault at December 6, 2006 7:12 AM

"...Audra Williams, who runs - an online clearing house of information about Status of Women and ways to take action...."

Taking action: Angry Man.

Posted by: JM at December 6, 2006 7:56 AM

My E-Mail to Angry Woman:

I'm not angry. I finally got rid of my anger. She's now living her miserable life at a place like yours; a filthy mind numbing rat hole of joyless despair!

Free at last, free at last!

Posted by: Freddy Free at December 6, 2006 11:50 AM

I've weighed in too.

These cry babies are just too much. When will they ever grow up?

Posted by: 'been around the block at December 6, 2006 9:19 PM

Reido at December 5, 2006 03:34 PM

Man, that was the best comment. I'm gonna steal it, m-kay? Ironic thing is, the gals who graduated in my engineering class would scoff at these "Perpetual Victim Hags" (great line, Penny), and just keep rolling on - unassisted - in their careers.

Freddy Free:

ROFL! Almost choked up my coffee when I read that wisecrack :D


Posted by: mhb at December 7, 2006 8:45 PM

Most men are afraid of women.

Posted by: ok4ua at December 7, 2006 11:26 PM

Big rally today according to the hag on cbc today.
But, the last 3 times I called they were not answering their phone, just voice mail. At least they can't hang up on you. Today I called the cbc and asked if they had the guts to go and read the e-mails and listen to the voice mail that are calling this waa group a bunch of idiots. Wait for the rallies across canada today.

Posted by: maryT at December 8, 2006 2:19 PM

You Tories are all full of hate. Men and women. And you're phoney. I'd like to meet your wives. Barefoot and pregnant. I think that is tory policy.

Posted by: ok4ua at December 8, 2006 6:36 PM

Barefoot and pregnant. I think that is tory policy.

I'm neither barefoot nor pregnant. That phrase is sheer demagoguery.

Posted by: SUZANNE at December 9, 2006 8:34 AM

ok4u, I think most of the posters here are the wives. At least the conservatives reproduce, the liberals and ndp kill their babies. But, they do have nice shoes, especially BS, at least landslide annies said so.

Posted by: maryT at December 11, 2006 2:07 AM