Via reader kdl in the comments;
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.
Kathy Shaidle has more including a copy of her letter to Minister Bev Oda, and a link to the predictable feminist sqealing over the suggestion they be weaned from SOW.
Speaking of which, the Progressive Bloggers are running an online poll on this question. To preempt any PB complaints that my mention of this poll might be somehow responsible for “rigging” the result, I am not disclosing whether I voted or no.
Update – as noticed by commentor “lookout”;
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?
Not at all. The regressive chauvinists have (as someone put it last week) “just had their ass handed to them by a girl.”
“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.