Memo to Jennifer Ditchburn of via Macleans: I’d like to draw your attention to something –
Several pro-Conservative Internet blogs have signed onto a campaign to eliminate Status of Women Canada, a Trudeau-era federal agency that promotes women’s equality and advancement.
The campaign was kickstarted by REAL Women of Canada, one of Canada’s most vocal organizations of social conservatives. It has long urged the federal government to axe Status of Women – but this time its message is being widely discussed and supported among some in the Conservative Internet community.
[…]
But fears that the campaign might find favour within a caucus that includes many social conservatives have taken root in some quarters.
Halifax communications consultant and blogger Audra Williams has mounted her own counter-offensive, urging readers to write to their MP in support of Status of Women Canada.
“This actually turns my blood to ice,” Williams wrote last week. “I am calling my MP right now. I mean, I know she’s on board, but still I am calling her.”
It isn’t just “social conservatives” who want the “Harper government to axe Status of Women Canada” and marginalizing their critics in such a manner is disingenuous – at best. Had you bothered to report on who and what SOW spends our taxdollars on, those fearful squeals from feminists might have been placed in the appropriate context.
This quote from Monica Lysack of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada is particularly ridiculous:
“When you look at women in Canada and their human rights compared to international standards, we have a long way to go.”
What complete and utter bullshit. Modern organized feminism has nothing to do with human rights for women, and everything to do with pushing the agenda of the left – the word “Women” in Status Of Women reduced to a device to ensure continued government funding.
If this were not the case, if SOW genuinely functioned as a voice on “womens issues” in Canada, the organization would maintain official political neutrality on issues like abortion and child care. There would have been no us-vs-them content in the Ditchburn article, because the “social conservatives” she refers to would be playing a meaningful role in policy development within the organization.
Pamela Bone, in the Australian, illustrates how (like the word “progressive”) the word “women” has been quietly appropriated as yet another euphanism for “the hard left”;
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.”
A little late to the game, Ms. Baxter is.
More reaction…
Check out REAL Women, Bobby boy. Sorry, but you’re proving yourself to be an ignorant, pompous ass. Again.
Below, copied from REAL Women’s website, this is their first posted brief:
“1983
“1. Women and the Economy – Ethical Reflections on the Economics Crisis
Submitted to the Ontario Hearing Panel
June 1983”
So put that in your pipe and smoke it, buster. Your preening, sanctimonious, empty-brained posturing’s altogether unwelcome. Go home and play in your sandbox.
Some seething entity raged: “Check out REAL Women, Bobby boy. Sorry, but you’re proving yourself to be an ignorant, pompous ass. Again…o put that in your pipe and smoke it, buster. Your preening, sanctimonious, empty-brained posturing’s altogether unwelcome. Go home and play in your sandbox.”
Wow, that’s pretty hateful, even for a woman.
OK, REAL Women is one suuuuuper obvious example that everyone already knows about. By stating this you are proving, not disproving, my point. For our gracious hostess’ benefit grow up, and stop being so emotional and hostile, please.
bob – don’t change the meaning of what people write and then sneer at them for your false interpretation. ‘Been round the block said:
“Well, you might be interested to know that I’ve been doing the same for over 25 years, Bob, and I’ll bet a whole lot of bloggers on this thread have been speaking against radical feminism for almost as long or longer.”
Then, bob, you changed the meaning to write: “There is little to no evidence to support this, which is kinda my point. Show me the evidence of “a whole lot of bloggers in this thread” and 30 year old organizations devoted to and proficient in fighting radical feminism. Be specific.
‘Been Round’ didn’t need to provide evidence for their statement that they’ve been speaking against radical feminism for over 25 years’. You, bob, either believe them or openly state why you refuse to believe them.
The evidence for a ‘whole lot of bloggers’ is within the thread, where individuals have been referring to their long rejection of radical feminism. As for ’30 year old organizations’ – no-one is talking about an organization, but about individuals speaking against radical feminism for 25 plus years. I’m certainly in that group, but it isn’t an organization. And, I know a lot of other people who have been opposed to radical feminism for just as long.
Try reading Christina Hoff Sommers, or Patricia Pearson, or Donna LaFramboise (the last two are Canadian) for some indication of criticism of the radical feminists.
ET says “Try reading ”
Are women physically incapable of civil and rational discussion in blogs?
Seriously, by heterosexual male standards you folks are insanely hostile. We view pedantry, for example, as uncivil. Anyone? Anyone?
bob – why is a reference to an analytic study of a subject an act that is uncivil and irrational? Such a statement on your part is, in itself, uncivil and irrational.
Surely you can’t assume that you ‘know everything’ innately. Since you don’t seem to be aware of the opposition to radical feminism, then, I suggested a few books. There are also lots of articles in journals. These would show you, empirically, that there is a lot of opposition to radical feminism. Don’t you want empirical evidence?
What are ‘heterosexual male standards’? I’ve never heard of such a criterion. Standards for what? Lifting weights? Throwing a discus? There’s obviously no such thing as a ‘heterosexual male standard’ within the operation of reason. So- what are you talking about?
Why are references to critical works – an ‘insanely hostile’ act?
Whew…seeing Paul Wells get eviscerated by our hostess in a few sentences was itself worth the price of admission. Where do I pay, Kate?
An analogy. A few years ago in Ottawa, a man and a woman were shot and killed in a residence by the woman’s jealous former lover (a male). Accompanying the news report of the incident was a shrill harpy from NAC-SOW who denounced the incident as “yet another example of the on-going violence by men against women”.
Watching, I thought to myself “What about the dead male? What was he, a hamster? Aren’t we really talking about violence against PEOPLE?”.
Ahh well, some things never change, it seems…
Given to not telling the truth, Bob, or is it just a short memory? At 9:10, just over an hour ago, you posted:
“A substantially less civil BATB says: ‘Well, you might be interested to know that I’ve been doing the same [challenging feminists] for over 25 years'[sic]
“I may have been born yesterday, but I stayed up all night. Show me evidence and I’ll believe you.
” ‘and I’ll bet a whole lot of bloggers on this thread have been speaking against radical feminism for almost as long or longer.’
“There is little to no evidence to support this, which is kinda my point. Show me the evidence of ‘a whole lot of bloggers in this thread’ [well, all you had to do was look] and 30 year old organizations devoted to and proficient in fighting radical feminism. Be specific.”
So, at 9:33, I was.
Oh that, you said. Everyone knows THAT.
That makes you look pretty stupid, Bob. And duplicitous. But, since when has that stopped you?
Bob, here’s another book to consider. It’s from 1996 by an author who was probably in her 60s then:
“Rescuing Feminism from the Feminists
Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life”: How Today’s Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch with the Real Concerns of Women. By Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. Doubleday. 288 pp. $23.95.
Fox-Genovese is a professor.
Reviewed by Mary Ann Glendon [Professor of Law, Harvard]
[This is the start of Glendon’s review.]
“This timely and well-documented book addresses the puzzle of why nearly two-thirds of American women embrace many of the goals of the feminist movement, yet say that they do not consider themselves feminists. What does it mean when a woman says, “I am not a feminist, but . . .”?
“The short answer, according to historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (who describes herself as a feminist), is that most women perceive “official” feminism as indifferent to their deepest concerns. In particular, they are put off by the movement’s negative attitude toward marriage and motherhood, its intolerance for dissent from its most controversial positions, its attacks on men, and its inattention to the practical problems of balancing work and family on a day-to-day basis. Hence the title, echoing a refrain running through the author’s conversations with a diverse sample of women: ‘Feminism is not the story of my life.’ ”
Bob, as you need to be educated on this issue, I highly recommend Fox-Genovese’s book. (Psst, here’s a reason, in advance, why you won’t consider reading this book. It’s American.)
Once again Bob puts his foot firmly in it. So the amount of posts equals the cares and concerns according to Bobby. NOT!
If you haven’t noticed, Kate puts up threads of a myriad of subjects that are of general or personal interest and possibly worth discussing, or even just outrageous. She practices what she believes in. As a sucessful artist and businessperson, Kate has made it without any SOW grants or government handouts (that i’m aware of). If this blog was a cause du jour one trick pony or a dedicated subject site then I for one would not be visiting as often unless the subject was of interest to me. Case in point is my blog on photography. I don’t have or expect political or social discussions there.
Maclean’s? Time Canada? Time US? Newsweek?
I started reading The Economist in high school, and never looked back. Once you read a newsmagazine that’s geared to a college education, the high school level prose of Maclean’s (and the others cited above) makes for thin gruel indeed.
Speaking of lemmings,
My favorite track from National Lampoon’s Lemmings CD:
“Papa Was A Running Dog / Lackey Of The Bourgeosie”
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2094195/a/National+Lampoon+Lemmings.htm
“Mary Ann Glendon”
Mary Ann Glendon is on the editorial board of First Things. (www.firstthings.com); another magazine I read instead of MacLean and MacLean’s.
Their blog is excellent. I was reading about Pluto, Plato and Wittgenstein today. At Inkless Wells, I was not.
Yes! That’s where the review’s from. You’re a good detective, Clyde! I too avoid the fluff magazines.
“Yes! That’s where the review’s from. You’re a good detective, Clyde! I too avoid the fluff magazines.”
I have New Criterion, Claremont Review of Books, First Things and From Dawn to Decadence by Jacques Barzun prominently displayed on my coffee table.
It acts like krytonite when a superlib walks in the room.
Hey Clyde Wells, your name has a nice ring to it and I read First Things too.
First things, for those who may be wondering, is a reference to the fact that if you don’t get the first things right (like, if your plumb line is even a tiny little bit off) you won’t get anything else right.
I guess I’ll just say a Novena or something for Bob. His plumb line seems to be the slightest bit off tonight.
“I read First Things too.”
Perhaps we could suggest a story to some of the journalists who may be lurking:
“Those of us who read First Things could be accused of secretly hatching a Theocon plot to take over Western Governments and reinstituting ugly pantsuits and Marge Simpson hairdos for working women.”
Run with it.
Where is Maynard Ferguson when you need him?
“For centuries untold, Plato was regarded as having won the debate. But the view that language is essentially a matter of convention, mere convenience, was given a whole new lease on life by the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein.”
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=435
I look forward to not reading anything about this in the next non-issue of MacLean’s, the magazine so nice I ignored it thrice.
The Wells Family is in fine fettle tonight.
EE-HAW!
Disinfecting Wells Following an Emergency:
You will need to clear hazards away from Wells before cleaning and disinfecting wells after floods and other natural disasters.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/wellsdisinfect.asp
This is fun!
Clyde, I know what you mean: Depending on the lefty friends’ tolerance level, I hide various books and magazines before they arrive.
Thanks, batb, for your explanation of first things. Right on. A novena for bob. Yes, I think that’s a good thing. Amen to that.
Oil, well, I love the Theocon plot: too bad my hair won’t grow long enough these days for a Marge hairdo!
Sorry, I don’t know Maynard Ferguson. I’ll google him.
Good night. Sleep well.
“He hath abandoned his physicians, madam; under whose practises he hath persecuted time with hope, and finds no other advantage in the process but only the losing of hope by time.
Act I, Scene I All’s Well That Ends Well, by William Shakespeare, Dead White Male
I can’t believe Canada provides government funding for lobby groups. That is undemocratic and politically retarded.
And another thing….
Naah…I got nothing…
I, and thousands of others, have just seen/read why the powerful blogsphere is so important to DEMOCRACY.
WAY TO GO KATE !!!!!!! You destroyed that MSM-Political Correct hack, one Mister PAUL WELLS. And it was so easy, wasn’t it Kate ? I am sure this will be seen as one of many turning points in the collapse of the MSM. The irelivance of Van Dusen and the PPG being another. Ditchburn, and the P-Correct just got,.. well,corrected. CREAMED.
I,60 yrs old, had a Mac-WTF sub for decades. Always wondered why when reading the spin-crap. Bothers me that it took so long to see the light. But then it was the Media, and Billions $$ against me. Hard to ground-proof the stories. well NO MORE. Thanks KATE !! so long PW.
I believe and have said before that the Status of Women Canada agency should be changed to the “Status of Valid Gender Complaints” agency. Add the few valid men’s needs and remove the frivolous “women’s” needs and the agency might well do some good: Adding the men would also remove the feminists and leftists as neither can tolerate the idea of treating males fairly.
Think of it: Solid work on removing misandry from Canada would benefit all Canadians of BOTH sexes. So would adding the male victims to the women’s shelters and rape crisis services: Plus, adding the men to the women’s shelters gives us, at minimum, a 10% drop in our child abuse rate, that is a BIG drop: Most male victim Family Violence (as measured by complaints to Police) is of the most serious L2 & L3 form, neither the man nor his children get help under current law, the ensures real and measurable harm to the children.
“A feminist sees men exactly as anti-Semites see Jews. This is because she is an anti-Semite—the same template, the same bottle but with different wine. She has a more hair-trigger anger (“Men are sexist pigs”) because she can get away with it, a more bellicose incivility for the same reason, but the same (watch, and see whether I am right) lack of humor, obsessiveness, and the characteristic basing of her personality on the hatred.
Haters seldom know much about those they hate. It doesn’t matter to them, and just gets in the way. As anti-Semites are clueless about Jews, so feminists are clueless about men. Anti-Semites know that Jews rub their hands and say “heheheh” and want to destroy Western civilization. Feminists know that men don’t have feelings and want to oppress women, and hurt them, and degrade them. Yet they (both) think they know the hated enemy. They both pour forth half-truths, thudding clichés, carefully selected facts, and abject foolishness, and both are blankly unable to see the other side’s point of view or to concede it any virtue at all.
I have known only a few such feminists well, though I have read many. They have struck me, without exception that comes to mind, as fitting a peculiar mold: bright, very hostile and combative, but physically timid and pampered, hothouse flowers really, usually from fairly moneyed families and often Ivy or semi-Ivy schools. Often they have done little outside of feminism and would be helpless out of an urban setting. They have no idea how anything around them works—what a cam lobe is, how a refrigerator makes things cold, or how a file-allocation table might be arranged. Their degrees run to ideologizable pseudosubjects such as sociology, psychology, or Women’s Studies. They seem isolated from most of life.
None of this is characteristic of women in general.”
Well, well, like little Susy Wells, the Libs have awakened to the fact that there is a Conservative gubbmint in Ottawa. With their “call” and their left-wing whinging (H/T blahg), the Libs/Wells are finally admitting they no longer fund/control the pork trough. $$$$$$
5. CP | Liberals call on minister to defend work of Status of Women Canada
OTTAWA – The Liberals are calling on Heritage Minister Bev Oda to come to the defence of Status of Women Canada, in the wake of a pressure campaign by some Conservative supporters to have the federal agency axed. …-
http://www.jacksnewswatch.com/
EDK posted: “A feminist sees men exactly as anti-Semites see Jews. This is because she is an anti-Semite—the same template, the same bottle but with different wine. She has a more hair-trigger anger (“Men are sexist pigs”) because she can get away with it, a more bellicose incivility for the same reason, but the same (watch, and see whether I am right) lack of humor, obsessiveness, and the characteristic basing of her personality on the hatred.”
‘Sounds like a pretty good definition of a harridan to me! And, of course, there are lots of male feminists too. To verify the above statements, check out the invective about REAL Women at the G & M letters at “More reaction” above. The vile misconceptions, poisonous slurs, and sheer hatred make the flesh crawl.
Mr. Wells, the Credible: I googled Maynard Ferguson, but my husband already knew who he was. (We’ve just been listening to The Hilliard Ensemble’s Officium with Jan Garbarek: great stuff.)
Speaking of wells, Psalm 84 has this wonderful concept: “Blessed are the [wo]men . . . Who, going through the Vale of Misery, use it for a well.” How wise. How resourceful. What strength! Women have been doing this for themselves and their families since time immemorial: Remember, SOW outfits are very new on the landscape. (‘Amazing that women accomplished ANYTHING without them, isn’t it?) It seems that official feminists have no idea about this kind of grace. Instead, they run, screaming, elbows extended, pushing everyone else out of the way, even kids, to get to the public trough first, where they demand that the rest of us fill it and then stand guard, while they slurp the whole darn thing, to make sure that no one else can have any. Speaking of the male “pigs” they disdain, this sounds like a pretty good description of PIG to me!
Well, Mr. Wells, the knowledgable, in all your guises, keep well today!
“Well, Mr. Wells, the knowledgable, in all your guises, keep well today!”
Thank you, from all of us.
😉
OK, you’ve had your fun. Enough Wells bashing.
Sorry, Kate, but that really was the last thing on my mind. I hope Paul has a fine day. Clyde too.
Phooey, I was going to throw another in the “well”. 🙂 GREAT thread Kate, one of the best in a long time. Its too bad that libs have to sign away their sense of humour as well as their intellect when they join the party. Even good of Bob to illustrate that point for us.
Nothing more to add to the discussion about SoW, other than recommend spending some time rummaging around .gc.ca -there are quite a number of SoW clonoids in the librosphere. The accidental collision of SOW/pork as euphemism may not be that accidental.
Kate,
The miscreants have been rounded up, thrashed, and denied alcohol and food as restitution. They shan’t bother you again.
Rest up.
Gwen Landolt, VP of REAL Women, will be a guest on a call-in show on CBC Radio, Saskatchewan, at 1:00 p.m. on Monday August 28. Last week she was on a CBC Radio show in Ontario. I understand they selected three callers with scripted messages, all in favour of Status of Women funding. Time for some Saskatchewan spontaneity, I would suggest.
BTW, Gwen Landolt is a really smart woman and she is a lawyer. When the press used to interview GL back in the ’80s (the Probe and Fail comes to mind), they never mentioned that she was a lawyer, only that she was “fingering her pearls which were nestling on her pink angora sweater.” Whew!
The left does not like smart women on the right. They will continually create a false image, so that the public gets the impression that any woman who happens to feel that motherhood is as important as, or more important than, punching a clock and running around like a chicken with their head cut off trying to juggle career and family is a fluffy-headed ninny.
They’ll be doing it now–or pulling out every stop to make REAL Women look like dragons, trying to devour Canada’s young. They’ll be accused of being “anti-woman” (come again?) and “anti-child” because they believe in genuine choice and challenge the radical feminist worldview.
It’s actually the other way around. So far, the feminist agenda, closely connected with the sexual revolution (“women should be just as free as men to have sex whenever they want”–never mind that this attitude when lived out puts females at great risk of STDs and emotional turmoil) has been the author of untold problems in family life. The feminist agenda is individualistic–women’s rights trump everyone else’s, whether it’s a husband or kids–and isn’t particularly conducive to the forming of a family unit.
Watch me get into a lot of trouble, now!! But what I’m saying is borne out by the epidemic of broken families since the ’60s and all the kids at risk now–also in epidemic numbers: high rates of STDs, pregnancies, school drop outs, illegal drug use, suicides, and sadly, the list goes on and on.
Canada/North America needs to re-think and re-group when it comes to the real problems women and kids face–and they’re not just those that have been rubber-stamped by the NAC/SCW feministas. It’s just that the feministas have the lion(ess’s) share of the money to network and push their agenda AND the MSM’s support: free advertising and free propaganda.
The thing that’s wrong with this picture is that it’s OUR money, Canadians’ money, and the feministas in no way think or speak for the majority of Canadians, women or men, even though they insist that they do.
Good luck, Saskatchewan. The CBC hates spontaneity. It much prefers left-wing, scripted propaganda. But, still, it’s worth a try. Good luck!
Don’t Poke Pins in the PC crowd’s Sins ( A rhyme by OMMAG )
Seems like SOW
Is a Sacred COW
A holy of holies
To the PC crowd
I must admit
To see this SNIT
Has got me grinning
Just a little BIT!
Being progressive certainly includes those of us asking questions about the money-for-value of the SOW.
And now imagine the good timing, as there is a poll being taken, on that very issue, by those who like to think they are the only progressive bloggers:
3w progressivebloggers.ca/
Buffalo Bean: Could you check that link again and post it. I can’t get to progressive bloggers…
Thanx.
Can anyone confirm whether Maureen McTeer was a member of REAL women back in the 80s?
Not a chance! I saw her on a TV panel in the 80s, definitely on the feminist side.
I remember hearing McTeer on a CBC radio newscast back in the ’80s, in a piece celebrating “International Woman’s Day.” (What a condescending piece of poop that celebration is: EVERY DAY is woman’s day as far as I’m concerned.)
She was championing the idea that the only way women could achieve “equality” with men was through economic equality, which is a crock. But she was a true believer back then and probably still is.
So what she was advocating was women’s full-scale exit of their homes, leaving their children in substitute care to join men in the halls of commerce.
Easy, eh? Once women are making the same paycheques as men, everything will be on a par and that will lead to “Woman Power.”
She, like all radical feministas in their rush to “women’s equality,” forgot a few things, however: What happens to the children (we’ve now got a very good picture of what life has become for them when there’s no one home) and what happens to equality for the babysitters/daycare workers, Maureen?
Do I hear a faint voice–Maureen’s–saying, “Well, it works for me.”?
Actually, Bob, you could have EASILY found the answer to your question ALL BY YOURSELF: How about using GOOGLE and typing in “Maureen McTeer”? REAL Women probably wouldn’t be mentioned, but if you read McTeer’s views and then compared them with those of REAL Women–you’d have to do some easy inferencing here–le viola! you’d have the answer.
Re what BATB said: Although Maureen McTeer’s a lawyer, I don’t believe she’s spent much of her adult life practising law. As a result of her privileged position (I guess that’s debateable!)–married to Joe Clark–she got all kinds of perqy appointments. Her aspirations for women are perhaps all very well for women of privilege–though their kids are another matter–who are able to hire good help. However, for less well heeled women, her formula’s a bust. (Not ALL women can or desire to become professionals who earn fat pay cheques.)
As ET’s pointed out, official feminism’s been very much a make-work project for women from certain groups, at the expense of their less privileged sisters, who, like their children, are usually more, not less, at risk as a result of the feminist philosophy: have sex like men, then chuck them, and let the friendly, caring government hand you the $. Definitely something wrong with this picture!
Meanwhile, McTeer and her daughter, Catherine, who’s just had a baby, but’s already back to work–a very part time media spot–will carry on as women of privilege always have: They’ll hire other women and, for a pittance, will let them clean their houses and care for their kids. (In my opinion, this is a valid choice and often works well for all the women involved. But it certainly doesn’t fit McTeer’s utopian philosophy.)
Bloody hypocritical. But that’s what professional feminists have always been.
I heard Gwen Landolt today on CBC Saskatchewan. She was, as ever, articulate, composed and full of facts. The host – someone new, can’t remember her name – could barely keep the surprise out of her voice as caller after caller, male and female, supported REAL Women and their ideology. The host tried non-stop to trip up Gwen, all to no avail. Conveniently, the last two callers were decidedly feminist (I could just see the producer madly rounding up friends to call in!). Hats off to Gwen for another job well done, and hats off to my fellow Saskatchewanians for demonstrating the real (REAL!) view of feminism in our country.
Go, Gwen go! 😉