With much fanfare, the Liberal Women’s Caucus – 39 female Liberal MPs and senators - has released their 40-page Pink Book, Volume III.
Clearly a great deal of midnight oil was consumed by the Pink Book writers in agonizing lucubrations about what Canadian women really, really want from their government. Keen political social observers nearly fell over in shock at the caucus’ revolutionary recommendation that Canadian women deserve a “compassionate Canada” where women can achieve “economic and social equality.”
Throwing caution to the winds, and with supreme leaderly instincts to the fore, Michael Ignatieff reacted swiftly to the report, unequivocally endorsing the heady challenge. Having decided to – as the spin doctors say – get out ahead of the issue, Mr. Ignatieff delivered a thundering rebuke to the received notion that Conservative Party supporters want a weak, insecure future for all Canadian women, by bravely announcing that the Pink Book is “a clear statement of principle that we want a Canada that provides a strong, secure future for all Canadians.” Take that, Stephen Harper and your anti-female minions.
Um, the above is sarcasm, in case you were actually in doubt. The recommendations aren’t revolutionary or surprising or in any way unexpected. They’re the same old demands we got in 2006, the first edition, and 2007: more help for caregiving of children and the aged, tasks that fall disproportionately to women, and a national daycare program.
New ideas include: micro-credit loans of small amounts of money to female entrepreneurs; the re-establishment of a national literacy secretariat; a toll-free national line for women suffering abuse; a seniors commissioner to advise the PM on oldies’ issues; and a gender equity commissioner.
Starting with the new recommendations: Why do women wishing to start enterprises deserve government-backed credit -- i.e. free money Ottawa can’t expect to be repaid when the enterprise flops -- more than men? Women are as well educated as men in this country -- better, if you consider the increasing dominance of female students in Canadian universities -- and since women make something like 70% of household purchases, are far better placed to tap into networks and targeted markets than men. Let them get their loans the usual way; if their idea is good, they’ll get the loan. If it sucks, why fund hobbies?
As for the toll-free line for abuse, that’s a swell idea; how about we make it gender-free? Memo to Women’s Caucus: Men suffer abuse from women, nearly as much as the other way around (don’t believe me, check out Statistics Canada), and there are virtually no resources in this country for even severely abused men – no shelters, free counselling, virtually nothing. So why should a national toll-free line serve only one gender?
Literacy? This is a women’s issue? How so? Likewise, how is a seniors’ commissioner a women’s issue? What, men don’t get old and have problems too? Have you seen the stats on homelessness, hardcore addicts and suicides? Disproportionately male. Where’s their commissioner?
As for a gender commissioner, if the Women’s Caucus really wants to go there, they might start by recommending the abolition of equity programs in university. Enrolment in most programs, except for the hard sciences and maths, is so female-skewed, an outsider might think men have fallen victim to some mysterious plague. And given the dropout rates of boys, one might call it a plague, because gender-wise the education system is sick. Boys are disadvantaged K-12, with teaching methods geared for girls, almost no male role models as teachers, and a very poor understanding of how boys learn best. Just this week Toronto proposed sweeping changes to education, including an all-boys academy, to make up for years of apathy towards the eroding peformance gap.
Maybe this putative gender commissioner could ask why Ontario health units only screen for abuse in incoming female patients 12 and older, not male patients, a policy deemed a “best practice” by the Registered Nurses of Ontario, even though male adolescents suffer nearly as much sexual abuse as girls.
And how about a thorough investigation of the family court system, where almost 90% of contested custody cases end up with sole custody going to mothers? How about support for equal parenting, a long- overdue gender-fair initiative that can’t get traction because groups like the Liberal Women’s Caucus aren’t interested in gender fairness, they only have eyes for the areas in which women seem disadvantaged.
Because when the Women’s Caucus says “gender” they mean “women’s interests.” If an honest gender commissioner were ever appointed, he – whoops, clearly I mean she, ha ha, what was I thinking – would recommend the complete dismantlement of all women’s government-funded lobby groups. Stephen Harper was right on the money when he called the Court Challenges Program a “left-wing fringe group,” because it only spoke out for approved left-wing groups, such as...women!
There isn’t a single body of women in Canada that receives federal or provincial funding that is not ideology-driven, and that includes the Liberal Women’s Caucus. The Pink Book III is rife with debunked statistics – for example, that old chestnut about women earning 70% of what men make; come on, we know that figure mainly reflects self- selection out of areas of higher personal demand so that women can spend more time with their children, a choice they happily make.
As for caregiving: Yes, women do more caregiving of those they love and in whose wellbeing they are highly invested. That’s to say there is personal reward in the sacrifice. And men do more fighting and dying in Afghanistan and saving people in burning buildings and slogging through crap in sewers for people they don’t even know, but somehow we don’t hear so much about those crummy jobs whose only reward is honour fulfilled and pride in supporting one’s family.
It’s almost as if men and women are, you know, different, each with their own strengths and weaknesses and advantages and disadvantages.
Wow, now that is a shocking idea. Of course, to admit it would be a truly revolutionary act, and somehow I don’t think we can expect Michael Ignatieff to be supporting those home truths any time soon.
Here’s another revolutionary suggestion for the Women’s Caucus.
Ladies, the war is over. Women won. Declare victory, disband and start looking at Canada as a nation of equal citizens, not oppressors and victims.
National Post
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/22/barbara-kay-the-pink-book.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage#ixzz0UlcPL59l
4:06 PM
Micro-credit?
Listen, Canadian women, or men, or children couldn't start a legal lemonade stand in this bureaucratic nation on micro-credit. Get real.
That's an insult.
by IainGFoulds 4:11 PM
... "Start looking at Canada as a nation of equal citizens".
... Thank you, Barbara.
by golfergirl 4:14 PM
Sighhh, far be it from me to trash my sisters whose intentions are so good, unfortunately when they keep taking their cues from people magazine and the Toronto Star I just don't want them anywhere near taxpayers money.
As for the war being over...you are correct Barbara, we won a long time ago. Unfortunately now we have started our own form of nation building and it is very ugly and frightening, the biggest environmental zealots seem to be woman, hook line and sinker they are being reeled in, they think they are saving the world for their children when all the while they are condeming them to a future of debt and questionable liberty's .
by Tossed Salad 4:18 PM
Yes this is a copy and paste. Live with it Liebrals and Dippers.
I don't know if this comment thread will take it all. If not I will cut and paste some more.
The Feminist Privilege Check List
1. Do you experience other people paying for your dates, or occasionally even picking up the tab in non-romantic settings? Or paying for vacations when the relationship moves along?
2. Do you occasionally experience subservient gestures by the opposite sex(opening doors, giving up a seat in the bus, standing up when you come in the room)?
3. Are you able to simply pursue what you are interested in at university without much societal pressure on “breadwinning” - although you could also take that route if it interests you?
4.a. Have you had to register for selective service? Would you be ripped out of your life and forced to defend your country in time of attack or national emergency? Can you demand strength and full participation in society, but then get out of this obligation by pretending to be weak with no influence over society (only when it suits you)?
4.b. Can you come up with any and every excuse to get out of this without being laughed at (”No one should be drafted” - when you would be the first to cower in the corner and demand that someone do something if enemy countries combined and attacked full force - and “If men start wars …” when women are the majority of voters and the expression is more likely “Men are SENT in wars …” - exactly what you’re trying to get out of - and sometimes sent by M. Thatcher, G. Meir, I. Gandhi, B. Bhutto and others)
5. Will you statistically get a much lighter sentence for exactly the same offense if you commit a crime?
6. Are you able to take on a job or choose a career route that is only capable of supporting yourself, with no thought to preparing yourself to also support a spouse/children, although you are also free to choose a more difficult career that will bring you more money? Do you not have much pressure on you with regard to this?
7. If you are in a committed relationship, do you have much greater flexibility to choose whether you want to work or simply stay at home (even without kids)?
8. Will you be called an unemployed loser if you decide to be a homemaker?
9. If you have a flat tire on the road, if someone is harassing you in a public place, if an animal attacks you, or if you are lost, will someone be much, much more likely to help you?
10. Are people generally much nicer to you in public? Are you sometimes given privileged treatment?
11. Are you much more capable of “marrying up” - enjoying the money and status that comes with this?
12. Are you statistically much more likely to be given money in a divorce - sometimes huge amounts - even if your behavior caused the divorce (e.g. affair) and even if you didn’t work for the money?
13. If you slap a person - or even knock someone’s tooth out throwing your Aunt Selma’s Christmas mug at that person - is it much more likely to just be viewed as cute, understandable or not a problem?
14. Do you statistically live much longer - possibly due to less stress on you with regard to bread winning, providing protection, being responsible, not having society viewing you as “expendable” or viewing your problems as not being important?
15. Do you have much more money spent on your health concerns in reality (e.g. 5 times as much on breast cancer as on prostate cancer - although they have roughly the same death rates) while you simultaneously claim that more has to be done for you?
16. Are you much less likely to be homeless? Is more offered to you by society when you are in this position?
17. Is there far less scorn and pressure on you by society when you are an irresponsible doofus? Are your default rates for payment of child support roughly twice those of the other gender, while you simultaneously complain about the other gender not paying?
18. Has whining about and hating the other gender actually been made into a course of studies in college (womens studies) - as opposed to the true, neutral, unbiased study of this topic - which is simply anthropology?
19. Do you have full opportunity to do anything you want in life - become a doctor, a lawyer, start a business - while simultaneously using the fact that many of your gender don’t CHOOSE themselves to do these things as an argument to try to gain even more advantages? Do you get affirmative action because many of your gender don’t choose to do these things, and thus the numbers don’t “come out right”?
20. Can you manipulate the other gender with sex in some cases to get what you want? Can you pretend like you don’t even know what anyone is talking about on this topic?
21. Can you manipulate using old notions of men protecting and deferring to women when it comes in handy?
22. Can you effectively manipulate by playing the victim? Do tears work sometimes?
23. Can you get sympathy if you don’t work and don’t have children by listing all the household work (hmm … Oprah really does get high ratings, though) while simultaneously being able to bear the cognitive dissonance of calling your sister’s husband who stays home a worthless bum that she ought to leave?
24. Can you “mix and match” traditional and progressive roles - finding just the right mix to get what you want? Can you be a “traditional wife” - enjoying the positive features of that (like not having to work) - while simultaneously being a progressive feminist hen THAT gets you advantages? Or having a career while simultaneously using traditional chivalry and male deference to your advantage?
25. Can almost any remark by your partner be construed as verbal abuse if you want sympathy, but the meanest, nastiest, most humiliating things that you can say simply involve “speaking your mind” and “some people just don’t want to hear the truth”?
26. Can you use the fact that gender roles were differentiated long ago - with different advantages/disadvantages for both genders - to try to induce guilt today in people who had absolutely no connection with any of that? Can you say that you have been discriminated against for thousands of years - when you’re only 20 years old - with a straight face? Can you even make things up about history and no one will really check or dare call you on it?
27. Can you propagate myths and outright lies (”Superbowl/domestic violence hoax”, “rule of thumb”, 1/4 rape statistic, intentional misconstruing of pay figures, and many more) and be given a “pass” - without more rigor being demanded?
28. Can you rationalize your own failures using the concept of the “patriarchy”, and blame the other gender for nearly everything that goes wrong in your life - even with quite contorted explanations that no one would otherwise buy - while failures of the other gender are just … failures?
29. Do you want to be treated like a child when it suits you but as an adult when you get an advantage from that? It is called lifeboat feminism. Do you “look the other way” when someone doesn’t require responsibility from you that they certainly would from the other gender?
30. Can you focus heavily on perceived earnings in the workforce - the statistics of which are influenced by people’s choices in reality - while utterly ignoring the inter-family transfer of wealth? Can you completely ignore the fact that one gender picks tougher jobs (garbage collector), works more hours and takes on more responsibility because of more pressure to earn - but the other gender has the same lifestyle and statistically more assets (and not just because of inheritance/earlier age of male at death…). Can you deliberately claim that earnings figures are based on equal pay for equal work? (when you probably full well know that they simply involve all people working more than 35 hours - and don’t take type of job, hours worked over 35/week, danger, responsibility, years in the work force etc. into consideration at all).
31. Is what used to simply be an irritation for grown-ups many years ago - the self-centered rantings and foot stompings of spoiled high-school and college brats - now not only embraced by your movement but almost the modern cornerstone of it?
32. And if you irritated about generalizations and stereotypes - and utterly fail to see the hypocrisy in stereotyping and generalizing about one gender while simultaneously making a career (literally in some cases) whining about your own gender being stereotyped …
… you may have female/feminist privilege! But don’t let on - because you can gain much more with a continual victim status.
by Sassylassie 4:22 PM
Bravo a wonderful rebuttal to the backward loopy feminist laden Liberal Party, don't expect them to take your advice tou the Liberal Party is stuck in the 1990s.
by defender62 4:29 PM
Love it Barbara, love it! The only think I would add is that men have no "right to choose," no "reproductive freedom." Women have the right to choose who gets to live and who gets to die while men must powerlessly stand back and watch their unborn children be slaughtered on a whim.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's time to dismantle the Status of Women and create of Status of Men!
by gwestbound 4:34 PM
The Liberal Women’s Caucus knows Liberal Prime Minister Chretien looked after the national daycare program in 1993. It was a key election promise, along with abolishing the GST and tearing up NAFTA!
by hunter902 4:37 PM
Excellent article Barbara--
women of integrity will appreciate your voice of reason, rather than hearing the liberal "victims in perpetuity" outlook assigned to ALL women.
by Sassylassie 4:41 PM
9. If you have a flat tire on the road, if someone is harassing you in a public place, if an animal attacks you, or if you are lost, will someone be much, much more likely to help you?
End quote:--------------------
Lesson one from a consevative gal, gawd gave us cleavage and tear ducks for a reason thus changing a tire is not necessary.
by Gewald 4:46 PM
Wow .... first of all the headline grabbing with absolutely no substance writer Barbara Kay sound like a bitter old lady, still wondering why no boys chose her to go to the prom. Secondly the male chauvanist pig 'tossed salad' sounds like an emasculated mommas boy. The same things both decry in the article can apply to both sexes. Why don't men spend more time in school - it was their choice to shovel poo. Sorry but this article deserves to be covered in sewar water - one would never have thought there was still so much hatred in this country - of course though CONservatives are born and bread to hate.
by rossbcan 5:01 PM
crosspost...
Ladies, you're cut off. No more little man until you acknowledge:
1) Men and women are equal in terms of rights and responsibilities.
2) Marriage is a partnership, for mutual self-interest between equal persons, neither of whom gives up any of their individual rights, including property during and after marriage.
3) Parents are EQUALLY responsible for their children, including financial, after divorce and have EQUAL parenting time and rights. If you are so financially irresponsible that you are unable to deal with this, fine, the man will take up the slack in exchange for a proportional increase in parental time / rights.
4) Rather than judges listening to your entitled whining and sticking it to the responsible parent, matters should be objectively interpreted: Deadbeat Mother, victim of own irresponsibility.
5) There is no male alive today who is guilty of your so called original sin of patriarchy. But, by your irresponsible, entitled behavior, it is looking like "father does know best" and, perhaps our ancestors were not so "off the wall" with patriarchy.
Flame away...
by rossbcan 5:02 PM
crosspost...
The "right" of "organized force" (law) to play with definitions of "persons" by narrowing or refining definitions needs to be challenged, for the same reason that Nazi definition of "Jews" as "non-human" needed to be challenged.
In my divorce, I, my daughters and spouse were not human beings with inalienable rights to equality of treatment of persons, by law, but were: support payer, dependents and custodial parent respectively. Each artificially created classification (group) had its own "legal" set of rights and responsibilities, different from the other groups. The legal "profession" laughed all the way to the bank with the conflict and inability to cooperate this creates. Divorce is a "protection racket" based on destroying the ability of families to survive (impoverishment), abusing children and creating spousal conflict. The law claims equal treatment of all "support payers" in the exact same way that the Nazis claimed equal treatment of all "Jews". As opposed to equality of treatment of persons, in terms of rights and responsibilities.
I strongly oppose any legal doctrine that "divides and conquers" us by splitting us into "non human" groups, each with different rights and responsibilities. The conflict this creates is the bread and butter of the legal "profession" as they pretend to be "fair" by creating conflict and destroying our common interest as "human beings".
by MillerSouth 5:02 PM
Well said Barbara. Thank you.
And to GEWALD - If you are going to insist on participating in these posts, please, please post something coherent, and if possible, relevant.
Mr. Salad's post may be a little of place, but Barbara's article is spot on.
For someone who accuses others of being born and bread to hate, your post is not exactly written in a way that would make you sound like you were born and bread to be understanding.
by Tossed Salad 5:03 PM
Gewald: As usual tosses out the old canards. Rolls eyes. By the way you forgot the "you must have hated your mother". As stated on another comment thread "So predictable".
by ozzidawg 5:04 PM
Thank you Barbara. You prove time and again that not all women are stupid or weak - in fact, historically the women who have made change in this country have been strong, female, capable, resourceful and rarely dropped a hanky to get help...particularly those prairie agrarian 'feminists' who were actually 'partners in life' with their farmer husbands and helper kids.
My mother had no time for whining coffee klatches when there was so much to be done in the world - ranging from active participation in democracy by letter writing, phoning, serving at polling booths - to active self-realization at home through sewing, painting artworks, doing plumbing, carpentry, gardening and playing piano.
There was no welfare in her time and she had no time for shirkers - but had a big heart for those in need.
Now we have raised a generation of young women who think a "future" consists of being a single Mom on welfare - as well as a generation of single men who think 'it's not my responsibility there's a kid - the gov't will pay her for it'.
Whatever happened to equality being also a commitment to one's biological descendants AND one's community? Radical feminism has destroyed rational feminism and taken society a long way with it.
by Tossed Salad 5:07 PM
Sassy: I said it was a cut and paste. I happen to agree with most of it but not all. However, I know you might (I said might) use your cleavage to advantage I also know you could change a tire with your eyes closed. Idiots like Gewald will pull the strawman, err sorry, strawperson gambit and pull out tired old feminist canards from the seventies instead of addressing the points one by one or by rational debate. Hey I just described a gender pandering liberal and dipper.
by Tossed Salad 5:13 PM
I am now off to make home made chicken noodle soup, do some ironing, and rake up some leaves whilst my wife along with my sister fix the front left brake on the mini van. True story. So get over yourself Gewald. You wouldn't happen to know Hugo Schwytzer would you? He is another gender panderer I have dealt with in the past. The all men bad/all women good type who in reality are just trying to get laid. See I can paint a broad, err, wide stroke as well. Damn the leaves are going to be wet. Toodles.
by rossbcan 5:29 PM
@Sassylassie
"gawd gave us cleavage"
Yes, and, what do I have to voluntarily trade or do in return for access?:)
I happen to think that such trades are perfectly reasonable and, in fact is the only way to coexist in a peaceful, civilized manner. You OWN yourself, and, trade (or not) on your own terms, with your own resources.
Life is SO "unfair":)
Of course, unless you meet my trade terms above, you're still cut off.
by MikeMurphy 5:45 PM
by Gewald Oct 22 2009 4:46 PM
Wow .... first of all the headline grabbing with absolutely no substance writer Barbara Kay sound like a bitter old lady,...
____________________
Typical feminist rant out to castigate and slime anyone who dares disagree with feminist privilege.
Good info in there Tossed - certainly got the hackles up on at least one feminist. Hopefully more will show up with similar rants and childish name calling so we can see the true colours of this perpetual underclass of mythological victims.
More later - got to go and get lunch like an emasculated mommas boy.
I love it when they rant it makes my research on this class of human kind seem so alive and real not too mention incredibly accurate. Bring it on you poor victims of patriarchy and tell us more. Don't forget to call us misogynists too! Male chauvinist pig is so 80's. :)
by Tossed Salad 6:00 PM
Well said Mike. They are so transparent. They will never debate you because what they say will never stand up to empirical research. Get them into a debating hall with rules of discussion, well as you know it will never happen.
by MikeMurphy 6:11 PM
Here is a little bit of info on University degree granting for 2009 in the USA. Can you see the victims in this table. Men don't consider themselves as victims even if they are falling further and further behind the degree gap. Do we need a hotline for the female grads to get affirmative action placements for Liberal employers. After all the pink book says they need more and more largess from the Party.
Professor Mark Perry, from the University of Michigan, shows that men are falling further behind at every stage of university education. Here are his figures for the class of 2009:
Associate’s degrees: 167 for women for every 100 for men.
Bachelor’s degrees: 142 for women for every 100 for men.
Master’s degrees: 159 for women for every 100 for men.
Professional degrees: 104 for women for every 100 for men.
Doctoral degrees: 107 for women for every 100 for men.
Degrees at all levels: 148 for women for every 100 for men.
Christina Hoff Summers says "US Education Department projections though 2017 show a worsening picture for men with every passing year. If there is a crisis in the academy that merits a congressional investigation, it is not that women Ph.D.s are being shortchanged in math and science hiring and tenure committees, for that is not true. It is that men are quickly becoming the second sex in American education."
I would posit not "quickly becoming" as this degree gap has been going on since the 80's and is getting worse. A forward thinker on the Toronto School Board, which doesn't have many of these very rare gems at all suggests an all boys school and the feminists are all over him like dirty lint. They bring out all the usual epithets like misogynist and then like school yard cry babies the say "well if they can have their own school - so can we".
Its really pathetic when you stare it in the eyeballs and see the real truth about this species of human kind. Its all about privilege and supremacy - not equality.
by rossbcan 6:49 PM
@MikeMurphy
"privilege and supremacy"
I think if we start using the term "Master Sex", may get a bit more traction...
The divorce courts are the modern day gas chambers evolved to consider the fact it is far more profitable to impoverish with legal fees, futilely seeking "justice" and then enslave than to exterminate...
To them, males are the blight of the earth, just like Jews were to their former philosophical ilk.
by RogersJi 7:04 PM
If a male journalist had written this column, the rest of the Liberal owned media would have, figuratively, drawn and quartered you. But, since you are female, they will just say that you really aren't a woman.
by Sassylassie 7:41 PM
The same things both decry in the article can apply to both sexes. Why don't men spend more time in school - it was their choice to shovel poo. Sorry but this article deserves to be covered in sewar water - one would never have thought there was still so much hatred in this country - of course though CONservatives are born and bread to hate.
Speaking of hate your post is the only hateful body fluid riddle post, pot meet the kettle. What's with the left and poop analogies, Constipated or what? Damn straight I'm full of hate I hate those sniveling feminist who blame men for their pityful lives. If academia disappeared tomorrow those bird brains would have to learn to live in the real world and actually get their over priviledge hands dirty.
Tossed I love your cut and paste, gave me quite the chuckle. Feminist love to steriotype conservative women but alas we are resourceful and they are lazy and whiney.Mike you'd make one hell of a good spoke's person for real women, to bad you are a guy.
by rick1000 8:07 PM
The Liberals are already getting more than their share of women's votes so why not chase the men's vote instead? Could it be that the Liberals see women as more likely to vote in a herd motivated by the self-interest and hot button issues found in the Pink Book. Shouldn't women be insulted? I guess, as a man, I should take this as a back-handed compliment.
by Denis Pakkala 9:50 PM
Thank you Barbara, great article. The Liberal Pink Book will only lead to the further erosion of men's rights and liberty by acceptance of feminist ideology that only women are victims and men are perpetrators.
Barbara Kay's speech to the MWAA further illustrates the feminist ideological discrimination.
"Misandry, which is the female equivalent of misogyny (misanthropy is a hatred of humankind), is now entrenched in our public discourse, our education system and social services. I will give you a few examples, but for a full discussion of the phenomenon, fully referenced, you need only apply to two comprehensive books on the subject by Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry. Misandry flies beneath most people’s radar, because we have become compliant in the acceptance of theories that have nothing to do with reality, and compliant in the speech codes that accompany that tendency."
…
"And thus, through institutionalized misandry and suppression of dissent, these questions are never addressed objectively or for that matter even raised in the media, and the truth remains hidden under a suffocating blanket of feminist correctness."
by Denis Pakkala 9:52 PM
Christina Hoff Sommers, a conservative commentator, argues that feminism has a "corrosive paradox" and that no group of women can wage war on men without at the same time denigrating the women who respect those men.
Wendy McElroy, an individualist feminist and Fox News commentator, argues that some feminists "have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex" as "a hot anger toward men seems to have turned into a cold hatred." She argues that men as a class are considered irreformable, all men are considered rapists, and marriage, rape and prostitution are seen as the same.
McElroy states "a new ideology has come to the forefront... radical or gender, feminism", one that has "joined hands with [the] political correctness movement that condemns the panorama of western civilization as sexist and racist: the product of 'dead white males.'"
Conservative pundit Charlotte Hays argues "that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism has filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer."
by GuyTron 10:51 PM
Way to go Barbara! I do not agree with you often, but you do have a keen perspective on this issue. I also liked your article on Gender Disappointment a few days ago, it was illuminating.
by HMTQ 11:01 PM
Liberal Party corruption has not yet gone away
See
by Rectificatif 12:21 AM
Denis quotes Sommers on feminism being a "corrosive paradox" and that no group of women can wage war on men without at the same time denigrating [women who don't hate men]. But of course. That's because feminism is the ideology of the lesbian movement, not the women's movement.
In her article, Barbara Kay has debunked the #1 myth of our society, and written a manifesto for gender equality. Bravo!
The article should have been penned by a man, though. That no male would dare publish this analysis shows how servile males have become.
Servile and becoming illiterate. Currently, males are between 40% and 30% of the enrolment at post-secondary institutions, and it's dropping. So the ascendency of the Feminarchy is assured.
While this is happening, divorcing fathers have their homes seized; their income garnished; their children alienated; and their rights sneered at. Mommies get a full plate of entitlements, though.
Feminism is a scam delivering a baldfaced lie; also, a pampered lobby, as BK suggests.
by vanbengler 1:24 AM
Hello all;
Something interesting here: First of all, thank you Barbara Kay.
Now, how long will it take for all of those angry women out there to "get it", I wonder?
Secondly and this is just an observation: Of all of the people I dealt directly with at the BCHRT and directly opposing union and Company personnel, all but two were men, and one of the men was my union President.
Seven of them, including Tonie Beharrell, Tribunal Member and Heather MacNaughton, Tribunal Chair were women.
Three of the lawyers were women.
I had two "case managers" who were both pretty useless, and one of them was woman.
The person who was supposed to mediate my early settlement meeting was a woman and did a piss-poor job.
I've got a hunch that I was discriminated against on the basis of sex, and that I was a man sticking up for my rights, and none of them wanted me to.
They all wanted me to roll over and play "victim". Of course, I was victimized but they wanted to deny me my legal rights, too . . . .
So, the ideology of hardcore feminism is very much alive and well, here, too . . . .
"Ladies, the war is over. Women won. Declare victory, disband and start looking at Canada as a nation of equal citizens, not oppressors and victims." (end quote)
My question is, when are all the angry women out there going to get it?
Alternatively, when are men going to get their balls back and demonstrate that they deserve to be (demand) treated with as much dignity and respect as the women want and demand to be treated with?
Brian Leslie Engler
by Rectificatif 1:27 AM
Now, if I may, let's explore some of the details of feminist entitlement. For example, how does it work in the workplace?
Here's my experience. Employees, usually white collar, professionals, or civil-service, locate an office that is advantageous to them as females. They fill the ranks of any particular department. So far, no objections can be made by reasonable people. But then, many of them take one or two full-year maternity leaves at full pay.
The firm may be disadvantaged, but certainly not the employees:
If they belong to a union or an association, here is what they are currently winning at the bargaining table:
-- Full year's jump in seniority (not just a retention of their previous seniority) while they go out to have the baby;
-- Full year's jump in their position on the Wage Scale. For example, if they were paid at a level 6 when they left, they come back to the same job at level 8,including any negotiated year-end pay rises...
.. and all of this, without having spent a single moment acquiring further skills. Indeed, it's quite possible their skills have eroded.
And so we have the senior employee, now much better paid, and lounging in the workplace elite.
While all of this happens the males keep their mouths shut and carry the load. Now it's true that we want to encourage child-rearing in this country, for a variety of reasons. But the above is either Chinese communism or a society-wide fraud.
by JEST 4:16 AM
Barbara Kay,Many thanks for a great article.Is it just me or do most conservative women view men as equals ,helpmates and friends.Not the enemy.
by Rhino Party Whip 5:13 AM
Recti:
You are discounting valuable boardroom skills that one can only attain through maternity leave.
Can a non-breast feeder really latch a client?
Can a non-gestator really put investors and employees in the womb?
Is one pay-grade really enough?
No comments:
Post a Comment