If it means I can take her with me.
(I’ve been building a case for this for some time now.)
37 Replies to “I’ll Give Up My Right To Vote”
[deleted. If this is the best you can contribute, stop wasting my bandwidth and find somewhere else to troll. – Ed]
Here’s an idea since we like ban’s so much why don’t we ban identity politics.
Okay, I didn’t read the entire article (just couldn’t), but my favourite part: “and sex trade workers are predominantly female.” What’s next? Are they going to work on getting more men into it?
I was surprised to see that this was written by an instructor in philosophy at a college, as the simplistic arguements seemed more suited to a junior high school debate. Politics is a vocation with long hours and not many pats on the back. People who enter politics must REALLY WANT to be there. If women can’t be bothered to put in the work to get nominated, they are also unlikely to want to put in the work required to be our representative. The women who do climb the greasy pole and get elected are the ones who aren’t afraid to put in the work on the hustings and deserve to be our representatives.
“Heather Harrison is a philosophy instructor at Kwantlen University College.”
Enough said. Saw this earlier on national newswatch. For someone with a background in philosophy she sure has a shaky grasp on logic.
If anyone, be they woman or man, needs coddling to run for office then i do notwant them representing me. Period.
Comparing the unchallenged nomination of women to forcing people to wear seatbelts, lest they die? Surely my gender is not THAT dangerous.
As for ‘some men may be denied their right to run for office’: My forefathers fought and died for their right to vote and to run for office. To paraphrase a famous man, ‘You can take it from me when you pry it from my cold dead fingers’.
wendy.g
The way I read it was, “A lot of politicians are prostitutes; most prostitutes in the real world are women; ergo, more womaen should be encourage (helped) to go into politics.”
To force quotas might mean more women, but less qualified candidates.
I’m not saying that women aren’t qualified, far from it. What I’m saying is that more often than not, forcing a quota may result in an extremely qualified candidate discouraged from seeking a nomination because they are of the wrong gender.
I don’t think that women are at a disadvantage in a nomination race, I think that less women seek the nomination in the first place because they have other things they feel are more important than politics.
This was hilarious:
“Canada now falls behind Iraq in the proportion of women elected.”
Cool. Does this mean that we can have the Americans come up here and pacify us next? It would give her more women in Parliament, so I’m sure she’s cool with that.
What’s so special about politics, anyway? Why not quotas in the trades? Set aside 50% of openings in auto body repair for women, child care worker for men. It’s obviously just a case of societal discrimination that accounts for the skewed representation of the sexes in these fields…
I had a couple of good laughs at the writers extrapolations. The V S has no editors on staff I presume.
So, who would the chosen women be? What will be their political “means” test? Who will be judging and appointing the lucky ladies? What ridings will have the wish of the locals ignored and imposed on? What school of feminism should the anointed be from?
The author is essentially making the case that we should de-sexualize humanity.
The NHL should have 50% female content, 50% of births should have men as the vessel by her logic.
Yet I bet she’s also a keen fan of Oprah and likes to read human sprituality books – shame on her er, hym.
She is not in favour of female liberation but rather the asexualization of the highest order of primates. It makes radical islam look like an attractive option.
Please also take Linda McQuaig with you as well.
I know people exactly like here and would sheepishly nod their heads in agreement.
BUUHBgbugggbubbb! they make my skin crawl! Smelly misanthropic Lesbos.
There was a female in BC recently who wanted special, no doubt subsidised, daycare for female MLAs. My feeling is that until the female has matured and the children are at least in secondary school, she would not be a good MLA as her life experience would not be great enough
The author of that article is a closet fascist/socialist.
The election is about people’s choices not about some flunkies and fascists dictating who should be elected.
The point about the best candidate is irrelevant; those that vote have enough brains (although that may be questionable in case of Ontario) and will to chose who they chose.
They really don’t need some fascizoids or socialist advice on who to nominate and who to elect.
It is really distressing that in free society unfortunately these idiots get to spread their hateful propaganda.
Women should run for an elected office if they chose to do so and if they win, good for them.
Men run mostly to get away from the house; in rare cases they actually run with the idea that they can improve the governance of the country.
Of course the trouble with the politicians is that in order to justify their pay, they keep coming up with silly and stupid schemes to suck money from the plebeians and spend it freely on variety of useless schemes (paying add companies and getting some cash back, like the car companies do, comes to mind) in order to get reelected.
I tried to find something in the article that I could agree with.
“the B.C. government enforces seatbelt regulations to protect individuals from their own poor judgment despite the fact that this conflicts with the right of individuals to make free choices…”
“Studies show that women take up to two years longer than their male counterparts to decide to run for office and require more encouragement to put their names forward.”
“sex trade workers are predominately women.”
She may be right on those points.
“Smelly misanthropic Lesbos.”
Hey, I *like* lesbians and can relate to them. Hot looking chickz turn me on too.
“Studies show that women take up to two years longer than their male counterparts to decide….blah, blah, blah…”
Oh yes, that’s exactly the kind of leader we need!
‘Studies’ she cites are probably BS anyhow – but that point hardly favours womyn.
Philosopher Chick should get a job.
Hi philanthropist
I thought she meant that she would rather be governed by the unwilling. I agree with that.
From the first link in this thread, “The case for enforcing gender parity in politics”, in the Vancouver Sun: “According to the United Nations, a threshold of at least 30 per cent female legislators is required to ensure that public policy reflects the needs of women.”
Well that certainly settles it! The Sewer on New York’s East River, that paragon of integrity, wisdom, justice and fair play, has come up with a 30% female genitalia number to ensure gender justice. And if enough women don’t run for office, or win elections???
The article says “Without targets and quotas, political parties take the path of least resistance, which virtually guarantees that men will be nominated.”
But why stop at quotas in public offices for women? If you’ve bought this collectivist logic, then the corollary is quotas for gays and “transgendered”? Quotas for black, Asian…Muslims? This also logically means caps for numbers of white people, white males, Christians holding public office.
Too bad that the Vancouver Sun doesn’t believe in Democracy.
you know, there is a difference between men and women. I kinda like that. I like women.
That comment makes me sexist in many circles.
but is it not the truth?
Women like men too.
OK, so there is a difference. Why does everything have to be equal?
Do men need to be Kindergarten teachers and women teach, what did kate refer to, Auto body teachers?
Deal with the difference. Embrace it.
do not go looking for equality in every nook and cranny you can find.
On a side note, I feel so much better after a post on SDA.
Socialists want ‘diversity’ among the population but not between the sexes.
Who the He** is Heather Harrison?
Whoever she is, she’s an idiot and probably the product of some university’s Women’s Studies Program: “Women’s needs are still very distinct from men’s” How so? Then she counts the ways:
“Women are far more likely to be the primary caregivers of both children and aging parents. They shoulder a larger burden of the daily household chores, and they are more likely to volunteer in their communities.”
This, Heather, may be your clue as to why most women CHOOSE NOT TO GO INTO POLITICS.
Then she prattles on, “Poverty is correlated with being female, and sex trade workers are predominately women.” Boy, that’s a nonsequitur.
Yes, there seem to be more women living in poverty than men, Heather, and that’s usually because THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO FORM FATHERLESS FAMILIES, WITH FATHERLESS CHILDREN, something the feminists–and economists, politicians, members of the MSM, etc.–steadfastly refuse to acknowledge.
Women’s “needs” are not that distinct from men’s, at least not at the political level and this has been proven time and time again when you consider that the NDP has always espoused and endorsed a “women’s agenda” and they never get better than 20% of Canadians’ vote.
The operative word here, Heather, is CHOICE, a sacred cow, supposedly, to the NAC/SOWS and others of their ilk who’ve been brainwashed by feminist lies. The problem here, of course, is that “the choice” you must agree with is that there IS a “women’s agenda” and that women need special accommodations.
No thanks. Leave the choice of whether or not to run for political office to women, themselves, and deep-six any idea of quotas. They are condescending to women and they don’t work. When quotas are enforced, we usually end up with mediocrity or worse, while the best candidates for any job are passed by because they don’t fit the quota’s profile.
Look at Heather Harrison.
BTW, in case I haven’t made myself perfectly clear: Heather Harrison fits in the “mediocrity or worse” category… 😉
I have a question for anybody here who can can up with an answer.Why is it that people like the good prof Heather always seem to link poverty with female sex trade workers and never seem to mention that some of these ladies make a hell of a lot of money selling there assets?I would venture the guess that a few of the high enders make more than many politicians and perhaps one could argue they provide a greater public service.Your thoughts on this please.
So Heather is an “instructor” of philosophy at a college, that would be the philosophy of the Left?
Wonder if she’s been speaking with Steffi
Deyawn, he had a quota of 33%? Haven’t heard anything further from him on that score either, guess he’s busy trying to sound intelligent en Anglais. By the way, it’s getting worse!
When your dealing with the Left you can toss aside all reason and common sense, they lack the capacity for such things.
Forced choices = tyranny
Forced gender parity in representitve democratic system = ????
A typical Lib-left logical rebus
The article states that women make up 52% of the population. If the gender of politicians was that important, that majority could elect all women to political office right now. We want Kate as PM. Gynecocracy now!
“And women’s needs are still very distinct from men’s. Women are far more likely to be the primary caregivers of both children and aging parents. They shoulder a larger burden of the daily household chores, and they are more likely to volunteer in their communities. Poverty is correlated with being female, and sex trade workers are predominately women.”From Heather’s rant.
First point: If we start conscripting women into political and other leadership jobs … who will fill the vacancies left in the above description of what women are doing best at now?
Second point: Perhaps, it’s that most women are smart enough to know that the political arena if filled with narcissistic ego maniacal men and don’t want to deal with it. Many of them have their helpless menfolk at home ordering up beer and asking for help to find the remote.
Third point: If there are more women working in Government in Iraq, it may be due to men spending so much of their time masturbating since they are not allowed to have sex with women until they can afford to buy a few.
I realized I am being a bit hard on men here (no pun), but most men I know are either to feminine or too macho-useless to be of much use to a good woman (notwithstanding that there are a lot of bad women getting the men they deserve).
Final point: Sheila Copps is, alway has been and always will be a useless tool. I believe she has no man at all.
Why such a crude quota as sex. Why not a quota based on all the significant elements of societal diversity. Someone could write a program to draw from a database stratified by population: age, race, sex, gender preference, IQ (because we wouldn’t want to short change the mentally retarded representation), visual impairment, profession or trade, religion, non-religion, literacy, hair colour, dexterity, etc.
Or better still, why not just appoint based on representative political leanings directly to the Legislatures and eliminate elections all together – call it Computergeekocracy.
Ayn Rand once said that if you want to know what is wrong with Western Civilization, look no further than what is being taught in Philosophy Schools.
I wonder what the demographics of Newspaper contributors would look like of they required:
a) Intelligence
b) Intelligence
Good god that has to be the most asinine piece of crap I have ever read …. and considering our local papers in Winnipeg that’s a real low point.
John West…I find your generalizations offensive,wait a minute,honey,you are standing in front of the t.v.,oh,and can you grab me another beer,now,what were we talking about again?
One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is the right of the people to choose who should represent them at the elected level. Ms Harrison obviously does not believe in democracy at all.
Heather Harrison? Kwantlin College? British Columbia? My province? I’m so ashamed.
Wow, Can’t believe I actually agree with Kate on something. This article is so much drivel.
Hiring quotas, no matter what they are based on (gender, breed, hair colour, whatever) are inherently BAD. They, by design, create the discrimination they seek to eliminate. Discrimination is discrimination, changing who you are discriminating against doesn’t change that fact.
All hiring should be done based on qualifications… period. If we can’t, as a society, or as a particular political party, create the general conditions that draw more women into politics, we cannot do it artificially with quotas.
It also occurs to me that quota systems are specifically outlawed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since they are, by definition, discriminatory on the basis of either gender or skin colour.
The author needs to giver her head a serious shake, and, speaking as someone with a degree in philosophy, realise that her arguments would easily be shot down by any half-decent Philosophy 101 student.
I wonder if that’s the same Heather Harrison who ran for Vancouver City Council on the Vision Vancouver slate in 2005? (She was the only one of the five who was not elected, by the way.)
yes the competing points here are freedom and dictate.
[deleted. If this is the best you can contribute, stop wasting my bandwidth and find somewhere else to troll. – Ed]
Here’s an idea since we like ban’s so much why don’t we ban identity politics.
Okay, I didn’t read the entire article (just couldn’t), but my favourite part: “and sex trade workers are predominantly female.” What’s next? Are they going to work on getting more men into it?
I was surprised to see that this was written by an instructor in philosophy at a college, as the simplistic arguements seemed more suited to a junior high school debate. Politics is a vocation with long hours and not many pats on the back. People who enter politics must REALLY WANT to be there. If women can’t be bothered to put in the work to get nominated, they are also unlikely to want to put in the work required to be our representative. The women who do climb the greasy pole and get elected are the ones who aren’t afraid to put in the work on the hustings and deserve to be our representatives.
“Heather Harrison is a philosophy instructor at Kwantlen University College.”
Enough said. Saw this earlier on national newswatch. For someone with a background in philosophy she sure has a shaky grasp on logic.
If anyone, be they woman or man, needs coddling to run for office then i do notwant them representing me. Period.
Comparing the unchallenged nomination of women to forcing people to wear seatbelts, lest they die? Surely my gender is not THAT dangerous.
As for ‘some men may be denied their right to run for office’: My forefathers fought and died for their right to vote and to run for office. To paraphrase a famous man, ‘You can take it from me when you pry it from my cold dead fingers’.
wendy.g
The way I read it was, “A lot of politicians are prostitutes; most prostitutes in the real world are women; ergo, more womaen should be encourage (helped) to go into politics.”
To force quotas might mean more women, but less qualified candidates.
I’m not saying that women aren’t qualified, far from it. What I’m saying is that more often than not, forcing a quota may result in an extremely qualified candidate discouraged from seeking a nomination because they are of the wrong gender.
I don’t think that women are at a disadvantage in a nomination race, I think that less women seek the nomination in the first place because they have other things they feel are more important than politics.
This was hilarious:
“Canada now falls behind Iraq in the proportion of women elected.”
Cool. Does this mean that we can have the Americans come up here and pacify us next? It would give her more women in Parliament, so I’m sure she’s cool with that.
What’s so special about politics, anyway? Why not quotas in the trades? Set aside 50% of openings in auto body repair for women, child care worker for men. It’s obviously just a case of societal discrimination that accounts for the skewed representation of the sexes in these fields…
I had a couple of good laughs at the writers extrapolations. The V S has no editors on staff I presume.
So, who would the chosen women be? What will be their political “means” test? Who will be judging and appointing the lucky ladies? What ridings will have the wish of the locals ignored and imposed on? What school of feminism should the anointed be from?
The author is essentially making the case that we should de-sexualize humanity.
The NHL should have 50% female content, 50% of births should have men as the vessel by her logic.
Yet I bet she’s also a keen fan of Oprah and likes to read human sprituality books – shame on her er, hym.
She is not in favour of female liberation but rather the asexualization of the highest order of primates. It makes radical islam look like an attractive option.
Please also take Linda McQuaig with you as well.
I know people exactly like here and would sheepishly nod their heads in agreement.
BUUHBgbugggbubbb! they make my skin crawl! Smelly misanthropic Lesbos.
There was a female in BC recently who wanted special, no doubt subsidised, daycare for female MLAs. My feeling is that until the female has matured and the children are at least in secondary school, she would not be a good MLA as her life experience would not be great enough
The author of that article is a closet fascist/socialist.
The election is about people’s choices not about some flunkies and fascists dictating who should be elected.
The point about the best candidate is irrelevant; those that vote have enough brains (although that may be questionable in case of Ontario) and will to chose who they chose.
They really don’t need some fascizoids or socialist advice on who to nominate and who to elect.
It is really distressing that in free society unfortunately these idiots get to spread their hateful propaganda.
Women should run for an elected office if they chose to do so and if they win, good for them.
Men run mostly to get away from the house; in rare cases they actually run with the idea that they can improve the governance of the country.
Of course the trouble with the politicians is that in order to justify their pay, they keep coming up with silly and stupid schemes to suck money from the plebeians and spend it freely on variety of useless schemes (paying add companies and getting some cash back, like the car companies do, comes to mind) in order to get reelected.
I tried to find something in the article that I could agree with.
“the B.C. government enforces seatbelt regulations to protect individuals from their own poor judgment despite the fact that this conflicts with the right of individuals to make free choices…”
“Studies show that women take up to two years longer than their male counterparts to decide to run for office and require more encouragement to put their names forward.”
“sex trade workers are predominately women.”
She may be right on those points.
“Smelly misanthropic Lesbos.”
Hey, I *like* lesbians and can relate to them. Hot looking chickz turn me on too.
“Studies show that women take up to two years longer than their male counterparts to decide….blah, blah, blah…”
Oh yes, that’s exactly the kind of leader we need!
‘Studies’ she cites are probably BS anyhow – but that point hardly favours womyn.
Philosopher Chick should get a job.
Hi philanthropist
I thought she meant that she would rather be governed by the unwilling. I agree with that.
From the first link in this thread, “The case for enforcing gender parity in politics”, in the Vancouver Sun: “According to the United Nations, a threshold of at least 30 per cent female legislators is required to ensure that public policy reflects the needs of women.”
Well that certainly settles it! The Sewer on New York’s East River, that paragon of integrity, wisdom, justice and fair play, has come up with a 30% female genitalia number to ensure gender justice. And if enough women don’t run for office, or win elections???
The article says “Without targets and quotas, political parties take the path of least resistance, which virtually guarantees that men will be nominated.”
But why stop at quotas in public offices for women? If you’ve bought this collectivist logic, then the corollary is quotas for gays and “transgendered”? Quotas for black, Asian…Muslims? This also logically means caps for numbers of white people, white males, Christians holding public office.
Too bad that the Vancouver Sun doesn’t believe in Democracy.
you know, there is a difference between men and women. I kinda like that. I like women.
That comment makes me sexist in many circles.
but is it not the truth?
Women like men too.
OK, so there is a difference. Why does everything have to be equal?
Do men need to be Kindergarten teachers and women teach, what did kate refer to, Auto body teachers?
Deal with the difference. Embrace it.
do not go looking for equality in every nook and cranny you can find.
On a side note, I feel so much better after a post on SDA.
Socialists want ‘diversity’ among the population but not between the sexes.
Who the He** is Heather Harrison?
Whoever she is, she’s an idiot and probably the product of some university’s Women’s Studies Program: “Women’s needs are still very distinct from men’s” How so? Then she counts the ways:
“Women are far more likely to be the primary caregivers of both children and aging parents. They shoulder a larger burden of the daily household chores, and they are more likely to volunteer in their communities.”
This, Heather, may be your clue as to why most women CHOOSE NOT TO GO INTO POLITICS.
Then she prattles on, “Poverty is correlated with being female, and sex trade workers are predominately women.” Boy, that’s a nonsequitur.
Yes, there seem to be more women living in poverty than men, Heather, and that’s usually because THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO FORM FATHERLESS FAMILIES, WITH FATHERLESS CHILDREN, something the feminists–and economists, politicians, members of the MSM, etc.–steadfastly refuse to acknowledge.
Women’s “needs” are not that distinct from men’s, at least not at the political level and this has been proven time and time again when you consider that the NDP has always espoused and endorsed a “women’s agenda” and they never get better than 20% of Canadians’ vote.
The operative word here, Heather, is CHOICE, a sacred cow, supposedly, to the NAC/SOWS and others of their ilk who’ve been brainwashed by feminist lies. The problem here, of course, is that “the choice” you must agree with is that there IS a “women’s agenda” and that women need special accommodations.
No thanks. Leave the choice of whether or not to run for political office to women, themselves, and deep-six any idea of quotas. They are condescending to women and they don’t work. When quotas are enforced, we usually end up with mediocrity or worse, while the best candidates for any job are passed by because they don’t fit the quota’s profile.
Look at Heather Harrison.
BTW, in case I haven’t made myself perfectly clear: Heather Harrison fits in the “mediocrity or worse” category… 😉
I have a question for anybody here who can can up with an answer.Why is it that people like the good prof Heather always seem to link poverty with female sex trade workers and never seem to mention that some of these ladies make a hell of a lot of money selling there assets?I would venture the guess that a few of the high enders make more than many politicians and perhaps one could argue they provide a greater public service.Your thoughts on this please.
So Heather is an “instructor” of philosophy at a college, that would be the philosophy of the Left?
Wonder if she’s been speaking with Steffi
Deyawn, he had a quota of 33%? Haven’t heard anything further from him on that score either, guess he’s busy trying to sound intelligent en Anglais. By the way, it’s getting worse!
When your dealing with the Left you can toss aside all reason and common sense, they lack the capacity for such things.
Forced choices = tyranny
Forced gender parity in representitve democratic system = ????
A typical Lib-left logical rebus
The article states that women make up 52% of the population. If the gender of politicians was that important, that majority could elect all women to political office right now. We want Kate as PM. Gynecocracy now!
“And women’s needs are still very distinct from men’s. Women are far more likely to be the primary caregivers of both children and aging parents. They shoulder a larger burden of the daily household chores, and they are more likely to volunteer in their communities. Poverty is correlated with being female, and sex trade workers are predominately women.”From Heather’s rant.
First point: If we start conscripting women into political and other leadership jobs … who will fill the vacancies left in the above description of what women are doing best at now?
Second point: Perhaps, it’s that most women are smart enough to know that the political arena if filled with narcissistic ego maniacal men and don’t want to deal with it. Many of them have their helpless menfolk at home ordering up beer and asking for help to find the remote.
Third point: If there are more women working in Government in Iraq, it may be due to men spending so much of their time masturbating since they are not allowed to have sex with women until they can afford to buy a few.
I realized I am being a bit hard on men here (no pun), but most men I know are either to feminine or too macho-useless to be of much use to a good woman (notwithstanding that there are a lot of bad women getting the men they deserve).
Final point: Sheila Copps is, alway has been and always will be a useless tool. I believe she has no man at all.
Why such a crude quota as sex. Why not a quota based on all the significant elements of societal diversity. Someone could write a program to draw from a database stratified by population: age, race, sex, gender preference, IQ (because we wouldn’t want to short change the mentally retarded representation), visual impairment, profession or trade, religion, non-religion, literacy, hair colour, dexterity, etc.
Or better still, why not just appoint based on representative political leanings directly to the Legislatures and eliminate elections all together – call it Computergeekocracy.
Ayn Rand once said that if you want to know what is wrong with Western Civilization, look no further than what is being taught in Philosophy Schools.
I wonder what the demographics of Newspaper contributors would look like of they required:
a) Intelligence
b) Intelligence
Good god that has to be the most asinine piece of crap I have ever read …. and considering our local papers in Winnipeg that’s a real low point.
John West…I find your generalizations offensive,wait a minute,honey,you are standing in front of the t.v.,oh,and can you grab me another beer,now,what were we talking about again?
One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is the right of the people to choose who should represent them at the elected level. Ms Harrison obviously does not believe in democracy at all.
Heather Harrison? Kwantlin College? British Columbia? My province? I’m so ashamed.
Wow, Can’t believe I actually agree with Kate on something. This article is so much drivel.
Hiring quotas, no matter what they are based on (gender, breed, hair colour, whatever) are inherently BAD. They, by design, create the discrimination they seek to eliminate. Discrimination is discrimination, changing who you are discriminating against doesn’t change that fact.
All hiring should be done based on qualifications… period. If we can’t, as a society, or as a particular political party, create the general conditions that draw more women into politics, we cannot do it artificially with quotas.
It also occurs to me that quota systems are specifically outlawed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since they are, by definition, discriminatory on the basis of either gender or skin colour.
The author needs to giver her head a serious shake, and, speaking as someone with a degree in philosophy, realise that her arguments would easily be shot down by any half-decent Philosophy 101 student.
I wonder if that’s the same Heather Harrison who ran for Vancouver City Council on the Vision Vancouver slate in 2005? (She was the only one of the five who was not elected, by the way.)
yes the competing points here are freedom and dictate.