Kate McMillan:
You screamed bloody murder that Stephen Harper wasn't doing enough to help, you splattered every Conservative minister within spitting distance of your tantrums, you bawled and threatened and cajoled, and now that someone is making a personal effort to help - you transform Brenda Martin's cause into a political stink bomb. At about the same time as details begin to emerge that cast a little suspicion on the purity of her victimhood status.
Yep. It's not unexpected. When it comes to people on the right, the left holds them up to an unachievable standard: which is to be left.
Another great example is the Status of Women debacle. Originally, the Conservatives planned to re-allocate funding, and shut down several satellite offices across the country. Feminists went bonkers, and the Conservatives relented, restoring funding to the bureaucracy. Since then, the Conservatives have increased the budget of the SOW to $29 million, up from the $11 million budget it was when the Conservatives took office.
This has gone completely unacknowledged by feminist groups. At best, their response to the increased funding is: "f*** you, where's our universal daycare?". Some even continue to lie and say the Conservatives have cut funding to the SOW.
Of course they lie. If you've encountered most feminist groups, you'll find most academic feminists believe that Women's suffrage will never be completely possible in a capitalist society. Third-wave feminists, as they call themselves, largely view capitalism as patriarchal concept and that a true feminist society, is a socialist society.
Many socialist feminists, do not consider liberal feminists (those are capitalist feminists, by the way) as even feminist at all. It's viewed largely as an oxymoron by the academic feminists, to be liberal and feminist.
So you can understand why a right-leaning government would be hesitant to dole money out to people who believe that the government is inherently misogynist, if only by their economic policies.
I've said in the past, much to the chagrin of fellow right-wingers, that feminism has a place in society. But not socialist feminism. In fact, socialist feminism, which makes up the majority of feminists, and almost all academic feminists, find very little redeeming about our society at all. In some cases, the feminist movement has aligned itself with the "Islamic rights" movement.
Some feminist student groups have actually participated and sponsored "Wear-a-Hijab" day, in a show of solidarity with Muslim women. An interesting, if not hypocritical position, for a group of generally anti-religious women.
I'm not religious, by the way. It's beyond the pale, how these women go out of their way to normalize patriarchal elements of Islam in Western society, yet view liberal feminists as unfeminist.
This was greatly exemplified when the CBC (of all places) actually contacted various women's advocacy organizations to comment on the case of Asqa Parvez, only to receive the response that: it's not a white woman's place to comment on the plight of a non-white woman, and they were consistently referred to Islamic women's organizations. Even the CBC journalist was taken aback by this.
I was explained by a feminist that there is, and I quote, "a complex intersection between racism and sexism as it pertains to the Asqa Parvez case, and it is for Islamic women to seek their own agency. We have no right to interfere".
I would make no bones about it. I have no problems funding organizations promoting women's equality in the workplace, and in society in general. But an organization that gave a response like that, would have it's funding cut faster than the blink of an eye in a Mike Brock government.
Feminist organizations don't serve women anymore. They serve Islamic radicalism, and socialism. Even a CBC reporter, who was of Islamic descent herself by the way, got a glimpse of this. Even she was in disbelief.
Tarek Fatah, of the Muslim Canadian Congress, has also been at the receiving end of feminist rejection. Not because he's Muslim. Oh no. But because the feminists take the position of Mohamed Elmasry, that Tarek Fatah is not a real Muslim, and that he's an apologist for the West. Ask Tarek yourself.
Feminist organizations: if you ever wanted to know why people like me don't to fund you. Look in the mirror.
For all the feminists out there that are reasonable, and consistent in your views (even if I don't agree with you), this rant wasn't for you. I've met feminists who are highly disenfranchised by what they describe as the Islamification of the feminist movement. (I'll ask if I can use some of their names)
As someone has said, and it is hard to disagree with this after reports like this, too many feminists don't want equality, they want revenge...
When Michelle Landsberg was still writing for the Star, she championed the right of female fire fighter applicants to be hired with lower standards than male applicants.
Her "reasoning": there must be SOME technique available to female applicants to somehow allow them to fulfill the physical requirements, i.e., move a 150 pound dummy (no, not Warren Kinsella) out of simulated danger.
Of course, if such a technique existed, the female application could, you know, USE IT TO PASS THE TEST.
I remember my first encounter with such feminists in college. We were discussing porn (after having to view "Not a Love Story". Ugh.) and she maintained that all porn is, of course, "raping a woman".
"What about gay porn?", my leftwing, but incredibly well-balanced prof asked?
"Well, that's different, of course..."
Her head practically exploded like the Chicken Lady from "Kids in the Hall" trying to get out of THAT one.
As for this case, there are probably hundreds of Canadians in jails all over the world. Some are innocent, most, under the law of the land, are guilty. They took the chance when they traveled.
As someone has said, if the situation were reversed, and the Mexican President phoned Harper to intervene in a court ruling in Canada, what would he be able to do? Besides nothing I mean?
Mike,
You make some really good points.
First let me point out that if feminists are consistent, why do they insist on attacking Canadian Christians and the Catholic Church with such venom?
Of course there are self identified groups that claim to be staunchly feminist while claiming to be Catholic or Christian, yet feminist leaders and academics vent rather than defer to these organizations.
Is this where a "white woman's place" lies in attacking what they perceive to be a white Church? If it is, then someone needs to explain to them that the world's billion person Catholic church is predominantly minority.
Feminists are inconsistent.
Feminists fight to make sure that women are represented in all organization. But they attack when the representative women fail to reflect their narrow and rigid viewpoints.
Feminist journalists, like those I will leave nameless at the Star, willfully misrepresent the support for radical feminist causes. Most recently the Epp bill for Rights of the Unborn Fetus legislation.
The vast majority of self-identified pro-choice supporters advocated the "choice" inherent in that legislation. Hardcore feminists fought to misrepresent the will of Canadians. They continue to do so.
Have you heard about this new group the Women's Court of Canada who want to rewrite Supreme Court decisions? They are backed by the Ministry of Justice:
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3939&Itemid=0
What is up with that. Next, is David Suzuki going to get cash to make SCC decisions greener?
They are shouting themselves into a corner.
John