Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me "what Canadians think". In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."
email Kate
Goes to a private
mailserver in Europe.
I can't answer or use every tip, but all are appreciated!
Katewerk Art
Support SDA
Paypal:
Etransfers:
katewerk(at)sasktel.net
Not a registered charity.
I cannot issue tax receipts
Favourites/Resources
Instapundit
The Federalist
Powerline Blog
Babylon Bee
American Thinker
Legal Insurrection
Mark Steyn
American Greatness
Google Newspaper Archive
Pipeline Online
David Thompson
Podcasts
Steve Bannon's War Room
Scott Adams
Dark Horse
Michael Malice
Timcast
@Social
@Andy Ngo
@Cernovich
@Jack Posobeic
@IanMilesCheong
@AlinaChan
@YuriDeigin
@GlenGreenwald
@MattTaibbi
Support Our Advertisers

Sweetwater

Don't Run

Polar Bear Evolution

Email the Author
Wind Rain Temp
Seismic Map
What They Say About SDA
"Smalldeadanimals doesn't speak for the people of Saskatchewan" - Former Sask Premier Lorne Calvert
"I got so much traffic after your post my web host asked me to buy a larger traffic allowance." - Dr.Ross McKitrick
Holy hell, woman. When you send someone traffic, you send someone TRAFFIC.My hosting provider thought I was being DDoSed. - Sean McCormick
"The New York Times link to me yesterday [...] generated one-fifth of the traffic I normally get from a link from Small Dead Animals." - Kathy Shaidle
"You may be a nasty right winger, but you're not nasty all the time!" - Warren Kinsella
"Go back to collecting your welfare livelihood." - Michael E. Zilkowsky
Not a realistic feminist. The conversation lasted over 5 minutes longer than one with a real feminazi. Sorry for the Godwin but it seems to fit here.
I missed the part at the end where he said, “$20 ? let’s go for a couple of drinks after work instead, and I’ll make it up to you later (babe)” …
actually, I like most of these little sketches.
I keep getting feminism and AGW confused.Recently watched a college flick which stated President Woodrow Wilson’s wife ran the United States adminstration for the last six months of his term in office.
The premise being she was the first female president of the U.S.A. This coincides with Glenn Beck’s claim the American Progressive Movement commenced with Wilson’s Administration.
Does this mean feminism is really just an extension of female emancipation and/or the Temperance movement.
The result of Prohibition was the onset of organized crime. Do we understand what the latest iteration of loosy goosy thinking will actually leave with North American Society? Cheers;
Feminism is one of least successful marxist front groups, its leaders pretty well restricted to providing gullible bodies to boost demo numbers elsewhere on campus or getting them shipped over to Gaza to be “raped in solidarity” with the sexual needs of the local terrorists. Gov and uni jobs and the allied big firm lawyering while waiting to hit a jackpot with the UN seems about it.
What I find mystifying is why Sarah Palin is so disliked by “feminists”. Here is an example of a woman who’s made it as far as the governor of a state, holds her own against anyone and raises a family at the same time. Isn’t this the feminist dream? Instead she gets dumped on by feminists.
Now that women are quite capable of making their own decisions about what to do with their lives feminism is no longer needed. Just like now that the environment is far cleaner than it has ever been, environmentalists are also obsolete. It’s at times like these that the marxist secret agenda becomes overt. The linkage between feminism and CAGW is marxism. Watched the movie Salt last night and that made me wonder what happened to all of the Russian sleeper agents in the west when the USSR seemingly collapsed?
“The Patriarchy.”
“It means men control everything.”
*Blessings on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace,
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
*Infancy’s the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mother’s first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow–
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
*Woman, how divine your mission
Here upon our natal sod!
Keep, oh, keep the young heart open
Always to the breath of God!
All true trophies of the ages
Are from mother-love impearled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
*Blessings on the hand of women!
Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,
And the sacred song is mingled
With the worship in the sky–
Mingles where no tempest darkens,
Rainbows evermore are hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
~William Ross Wallace (1819-1881)
(feminists don’t want to rock any cradles)
STAY ON TOPIC. STOP RESPONDING TO TROLLS. THIS IS NOT A CHAT BOARD.
Battlefield315’s video is relentlessly hilarious. That’s great stuff.
it’s funny ’cause it’s true…
loki…feminists hate Palin because she is Christian, pro-life, pro-family. Her success is salt on their wounds. Their agenda is about eradicating the Judeo-Christian family model, not about women’s success. In their small minds a happily married pro-life Christian woman should be at home feeling oppressed.
If they were trully concerned about ‘equality’ they would speak out against sharia.
That’s one pretty hot feminist in the blue sweater. Too bad she’s a cartoon. And too bad her views aren’t.
As mindless as the cartoon depicts some feminists, regrettably it does, to a degree depict a certain academic reality. Pity that trusting women are being led astray by liars and perverts with their own agendas.
What I find mystifying is why Sarah Palin is so disliked by “feminists”. Here is an example of a woman who’s made it as far as the governor of a state, holds her own against anyone and raises a family at the same time. Isn’t this the feminist dream? Instead she gets dumped on by feminists.
Don’t kid yourself. Feminists all say they want women to “have it all”, but when the rubber hits the road, their allegiance will always be toward a career and “making money” rather than raising a family.
Feminists don’t like Sarah Palin — or women like me — because we *choose* to be mothers to more than one or two children who also happen to work. But it’s clear to them our priorities lie not in the boardroom, but in the living room. Sarah Palin has also made the unforgivable sin of giving birth to a child with Downs syndrome when the left is working tirelessly to eliminate such flawed people from our midst, since the handicapped make them uncomfortable (which is why they’re also big proponents of euthanasia).
Sarah Palin, and most other women like her, are also happy and satisfied with their life conditions. Can’t be a proper feminist unless you’re b*tching about how the patriarchy’s got you down, or how oppressed you are by society.
Feminism is full of it. Which is a lesson I learned in time enough to spare me the humiliation of thinking like one of them. Feminism does nothing, offers nothing to women like me and I don’t support it.
Bimbo Babe: “It takes years to learn how to think like a proper feminist.”
That’s for sure, and by then you’re bats**t crazy!!
Sgt Lejaune @ February 5, 2011 9:29 PM: “Feminism is one of least successful marxist front groups . . .”
Would that that were the case! With respect, feminism has seeped into all our major institutions—and the minds of far too many of their soft-headed inmates. Why do you think our kids are being indoctrinated into all kinds of lefty ideologies, like the “Green” agenda, in our schools? The teachers’ unions are very left wing and most teachers—as I said, there are a lot of soft heads out there—generally follow along. G.K. Chesterton: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”: having no strong allegiances, when our culture was hollowed out by multi-culturalism, and policed by Trudeau’s Charter and its kangaroo courts, vast hordes of Canadians simply chose to “go with the flow”: initially, that’s always easier than pushing back, especially if one doesn’t figure out—until it’s too late—that something’s seriously wrong. (The Anglican Church is so into “going with the flow”—it’s been altogether overwhelmed by soft-headed, jackbooted feminism—it’s about to be swept over the falls!)
Which brings me to loki’s comment (February 5, 2011 11:04 PM): “What I find mystifying is why Sarah Palin is so disliked by ‘feminists’”. Here’s why: she’s not going with the feminist flow! Of course, like all lefties, feminists are hypocritical to the core. Truth means nothing to them: deception is at the very (black) heart of their selfish, utopian agenda. Sarah Palin’s the polar opposite: she honours God and truth, she says what she means, and she “walks the talk”. She’s a total reproach to feminism and its moral pygmy leaders and camp followers. (bluetech and Amy have nailed it!)
“Females are superior to males, and if outcomes don’t reflect that fact we’ll change the rules”
~ Feminism.
Feminists hate Palin because she HAD her children instead of killing them.
Way back when feminism was known as “women’s lib”, I had some respect for the movement. It seemed to be more of a protest of traditional Christian, Victorian values. The religious aspect was much more prevalent, and most libbers were not considered man-haters. In fact, a lot of them were married, with children. Having grown up with three sisters, I had a lot of empathy for women trying to reach goals in the workplace.
Now that workplace equality is almost universal(except for crab boats and drilling rigs), feminism is redundant.
The lack of acknowledgement of muslim gender inequality is certainly a mystery.
coach writes, “The lack of acknowledgement of muslim gender inequality is certainly a mystery.” ’Not when one considers the real, versus airbrushed, feminist agenda.
bluetech describes it well: “ Their agenda is about eradicating the Judeo-Christian family model, not about women’s success. In their small minds a happily married pro-life Christian woman should be at home feeling oppressed. If they were trully concerned about ‘equality’ they would speak out against sharia.”
Amy writes, “Don’t kid yourself. Feminists all say they want women to ‘have it all’, but when the rubber hits the road, their allegiance will always be toward a career and ‘making money’ rather than raising a family.
“Feminists don’t like Sarah Palin — or women like me — because we *choose* to be mothers to more than one or two children . . . Sarah Palin has also made the unforgivable sin of giving birth to a child with Downs syndrome when the left is working tirelessly to eliminate such flawed people from our midst, since the handicapped make them uncomfortable (which is why they’re also big proponents of euthanasia).”
Yup, feminists are social engineers of the worst kind: killing to achieve their agenda’s just dandy with them. (In that respect, they’re very similar to Muslim terrorists: the Christian command, “Love thy neighbour as thyself”, is nowhere in their belief system. They only approve of people who are just like them: heartless.)
So, one would think that they’d be against religious fundamentalists, who mistreat women., which brings me to what I wrote earlier, “ . . . like all lefties, feminists are hypocritical to the core. Truth means nothing to them: deception is at the very (black) heart of their selfish, utopian agenda.”
Feminism is, and has been since its inception, part of the “Culture of Death” Bush senior referred to. It dovetails with evironmentalism. Islam, the drug culture etc in an attempt to rid the planet of humanity.
Sarah Palin is an example of what modern Western feminists can’t be- hard-working, pro-life, Christian, self-made and pretty.
Modern Western feminists want privileges, not rights. Ask them to stand by Molly Norris or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They won’t. Spoiled, overfed white liberals don’t like risking their necks.
As others have pointed out, North American feminism has never been about equality for women, it’s only about women’s supremacy, pure and simple, and only certain women’s supremacy — those with whom they agree.
Just ask Bimbo Babe on the video.
“Democrats would never do that…”
Little blue dress….????
However the post:
“Not a realistic feminist.”
is right on….
Most are SOW like Hedy Fry or Wendy Cukier…..
Gloria Steynem is perhaps an anomoly……
Then there was that alleged friend of Monika…remember that witch?
She reminds me of Antomia Z.
Okay, everyone, agree with the comments. But I am old enough to remember school days when boys took physics but girls took social studies; when a woman interested in geology would face a furious barrage of ‘only here to find a man’; when a woman could only be a secretary, not the bookkeeper for the department. Been there, done that. I am grateful for the opportunities that were opened for me; I am appalled at the anti-male and anti-homemaker rhetoric that has characterized the feminist movement for the last forty years.
I agree, Frances, that it’s good to allow women more opportunities. This was the goal of the first wave feminists, the ones you seem to identify with: most of these women were married and had kids. They believed that home and family were of primary importance. (Remember, much of the division of labour was totally reasonable: when one considers the lack of technology or reliable birth control up until about 60 years ago, it made sense for women to be in the home. A lot of us wish we could do that now. I had to work, but would much rather have been able to be home with my kids. My oldest used to ask, as she woke up, “Is this a day care day, Mommy, or a home day?” The “home day” answer always brought a big smile to her face—and mine too!)
Second wave feminism was utterly different and really went off the rails. The comfortably off Betty Freidan labelled the family home a “comfortable concentration camp” and the war on marriage, home, and kids was on. The chaos and unhappiness caused by this deranged philosophy—accorded hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars by the “enlightened” socialist governments of the West—are still being played out. The anger and skewed understanding of human nature of second wave feminists has ushered in the deaths of tens of millions of unborn children, soured relations between men and women, and has let too many men off the hook as far as commitment is concerned: why get married when sex is “free” and readily available? Women have been totally betrayed by this “bargain”, and it’s been an utter disaster for our kids.
Fortunately, many young women are beginning to see through the hate and lies of second wave feminism and are making some different choices for themselves, the men in their lives, and their children.
Surprised that the word misandry – i.e., hatred of men or boys is missing from the dialogue.
Wikipedia’s definition: From the Greek misos (μῖσος, “hatred”) and anēr, andros (ἀνήρ, gen. ἀνδρός; “man”)
Neo, the word, “misandry” may not be explicitly used in the remarks here, but the concept is certainly included in a lot of posts.
Women who love men, and who appreciate their fine contributions to our lives, are the kind who generally post here. Unlike the second wave, male-devaluing feminists, we see men as our partners, not our rivals.