Monday, August 28, 2006

Big Blue Blogburst just keeps rolling along

My hearty congratulations to Suzanne of Big Blue Wave, and all others who supported her blogburst calling for the end of government funding for SOW (Status of Women).

SOW doesn't speak for me either, and I resent taxdollars going to that organization. Their values differ sharply from mine, and probably about half of the rest of the female population in Canada. Let's see a some real equality; not just money going to feminist causes.

Or better yet, let's redirect the funds to our troops in Afghanistan so they will have better equipment.

There may be a few areas such as abuse where women still are vulnerable, but I challenge SOW to prove to me how their grant money is being used efficiently in this regard.

For anyone who would like to read more about this very successful blogburst, here are some links:

Big Blue Wave - It is Time to Eliminate Status of Women (lots of links here to various Blogging Tories' contributions.)

Big Blue Wave - Blogger Reaction against Status of Women

CTV - Harper Pressed to Axe 'Status of Women'.

Macleans - Social Conservatives Press Harper to Axe Status of Women Canada.


Join in! Write or call your M.P.

Time for one more Liberal entitlement machine to be put to rest.

174 comments:

Zac said...

My, my...a blogburst.

I must say I'm pretty excited.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm disappointed that it happened while I was away (but I am very proud of all those involved!)

jdave34 said...

OK. I think I understand.

SOW doesn't represent all women or their interests, so they should be de-funded, disbanded, and thrown into a giant pit.

I'm 100% in agreement here. Really. And here's why:

Stephen Harper and his government don't represent all Canadians or their interests, so they should be de-funded, disbanded and thrown into a giant pit. After all,they claim to represent me, but I don't agree with them, and in my opinion, they shouldn't get any of my money, because they don't do anything to help me personally. Doesn't matter if they help anyone else, I only care about me.

I like the sound of that. Maybe I'll try it on Revenue Canada next April....

Zac said...

It's been a while since there's been a good blogburst, perhaps later we can light a few torches and go burn something to the ground. What do you say?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

JDave, you can choose to vote against Harper. I have no way of voting out SOW.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

perhaps later we can light a few torches and go burn something to the ground.

lol! I see it more as a big flood than a firestorm!

jdave34 said...

WOW!!!! I'm LOVING this. I don't have cancer, so stop all federal funding for cancer research. I'm employed, so cancel EI and welfare. I don't give a rat's ass about the environment, so let's end all programs for cleaning it up. And finally, I'm not a soldier, nor do I plan on being one, so why on earth are we spending money on equipment I'll never use?

jdave34 said...

BTW Joanne,

I can't vote against cancer research, welfare, EI or supplying our troops.

liberal supporter said...

Is this the same jdave34 of old?

He is lucid and making clear arguments. He's not allowing anyone to play the "boo hoo you insulted me" card to ban/censor him.

Well done sir!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I can't vote against cancer research, welfare, EI or supplying our troops.

That's what I was missing! Good old JDave.

I think the salient point is that the above-noted funding areas are of vital concern to society in general, whereas SOW may in fact be obsolescent now.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

He is lucid and making clear arguments. He's not allowing anyone to play the "boo hoo you insulted me" card to ban/censor him.

Good point, L.S.

He does keep me on my toes, I must admit.

SUZANNE said...

Stephen Harper and his government don't represent all Canadians or their interests, so they should be de-funded, disbanded and thrown into a giant pit.

The Conservatives are not funded by taxpayer money,nor do they claim to speak for all Canadians.

Canadians chose the Conservatives through democratic means.

The Status of Women is an agency that seeks to address women's concerns without consulting a broad spectrum of women.

If there were such a thing as Status of Men, but only libertarians were consulted, how would that make you feel?

I don't have cancer, so stop all federal funding for cancer research. I'm employed, so cancel EI and welfare. I don't give a rat's ass about the environment, so let's end all programs for cleaning it up. And finally, I'm not a soldier, nor do I plan on being one, so why on earth are we spending money on equipment I'll never use?

See here's the things: those are actual problems. Women's equality is no longer a major issue in this society. Whatever issues that do exist can be addressed by other government departments on non-feminist grounds.

PGP said...

I'd be interested in seeing something about the SWC/SOW budget that makes sense.
As for questioning the usefullness and the need for this organ to exist, what's wrong with that?

Are the SOWS sacred cows?
Don't Poke Pins in the PC crowd's Sins ( A rhyme by OMMAG )

Seems like SOW
Is a Sacred COW

A holy of holies
To the PC crowd

I must admit
To see this SNIT

Has got me grinning
Just a little BIT!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

whereas SOW may in fact be obsolescent now.

Should be "obsolete". Whew! I caught that one before JDave noticed!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Suzanne, thanks for your wisdom. I am so glad you stopped by.

PGP - Thanks for the humour! ;)

RGM said...

Suzanne,
When men are in economically disadvantageous positions, i.e. getting only 75% of the pay as women for doing the same job, in serious financial straits due to a divorce and having to look after the kids, etc; and have to deal with the myriad of social, political, and other handicaps that women currently face, maybe it will be time for a Status of Men. In the meantime, since a great majority of men are running "the show," it seems a little ridiculous to even call for such a thing.

To suggest that SOW is obsolete is to imply that genuine equality has been achieve between men and women. Simply put, this is not the case.

jdave34 said...

"SOW may in fact be obsolescent now."

Really? I wasn't aware that women were no longer getting the living crap beaten out of them by their mates or that they were now making the same as men for the same work. I had no idea that young ladies were no longer being pushed against their will into stripping or prostituting themselves. I hadn't been informed that the media were now being more responsible in the way they portray women. I certainly didn't know that women weren't mutilating their beautiful natural bodies for a set of d-cups anymore, all to appeal to men and fit a disgusting stereotype. I didn't know that the idea of sharia courts in Canada was banished to history's dustbin forever. I didn't know girls were no longer being pressured into sex at way too young an age,I wasn't made aware that women no longer had to worry about being told what they can and can't do with their own bodies. And I missed all those magazines aimed at teen girls with scientists, athletes, and businesswomen on the cover.

I must have been on that lake up north with you, but for a much longer stretch of time.

The fact that I have to defend SOWC to women makes me sick to my stomach.

And congratulations on correcting yourself for that obsolescene comment. While it was perhaps gerammatically correct, it really came off like you plugged a toonie into the 10 Dollar Word slot machine and pulled the lever.

lineral supporter said...

I was getting worried that Steve might bamboozle us into thinking he's leading a party of moderates. If he could hold those voters who got tired of the past government's financial fiascos and supported him, he might get his majority.

Now we see financial fiascos is a small price to pay, compared to the price we would pay in having the no-longer-hidden agenda implemented.

Thanks to all of you, and

Tnank God!!!

jdave34 said...

"The Conservatives are not funded by taxpayer money,nor do they claim to speak for all Canadians."

--Suzanne, this line alone totally destroys any sort of credibility you may have.

1) Conservatives, like all political parties in Canada, are most certainly taxpayer-funded. I believe they get 1.75 for every vote they get in a general election. And that money doesn't come from the Elections Fairy.

2) Stephen Harper and the CPC most certainly does speak for all Canadians on the international stage. If I'm not mistaken, he's used the words "On behalf of all Canadians..." on more than a couple of occasions. He negotiates on our behalf (and to our detriment, right softwood lumber?), and he speaks on our behalf, despite the fact that only about 1/3 of the country actually supports him.

I suggest you find out where they hold the Civics courses for recently landed immigrants and sign up. You need to learn exactly how our government works before anything you say can be taken seriously.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

While it was perhaps gerammatically correct, it really came off like you plugged a toonie into the 10 Dollar Word slot machine and pulled the lever.

Back to the old JDave. *Sigh*

BTW, what does "gerammatically" mean???

liberal supporter said...

Yes, jdave should have left the last paragraph off each of his last two comments. In each case, it detracted from his argument (which I agree with in both cases), and gives an opening to comment on that, instead of having to deal with his argument.

C'mon jdave, let's leave it to Steve to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, even though he has a winnable hand.

SUZANNE said...

When men are in economically disadvantageous positions, i.e. getting only 75% of the pay as women for doing the same job,

Yeah, because they don't have the same seniority, because they choose to have kids. The women are not entitled to it. They get the same pay when they get the same experience and the same seniority. And I strongly doubt that the figure is "for doing the same job". This is a global number, comparing wages between traditionally masculine jobs and traditionally feminine jobs. Those figures are largely by the fact women take time off to have kids, and that traditional masculine jobs are more in demand.

in serious financial straits due to a divorce

And 2/3 of women initiate divorce. IF feminists worked as hard to save marriage as to encourage divorce, there wouldn't be as much of a problem.



and having to look after the kids

So let the dad look after the kids. If the moms are too poor, then maybe the dads should look after them.


have to deal with the myriad of social, political, and other handicaps

That are largely illusory and due to the inability to accept male-female differences.

To suggest that SOW is obsolete is to imply that genuine equality has been achieve between men and women. Simply put, this is not the case.

As a woman, therefore a member of the concerned group, I beg to differ. I am stating that I am equal, that I can deal with whatever challenges I meet in my life on my own, and I do not need a bunch of feminists speaking for me. Any issue that you brought up can be taken care of by another government department without the feminist claptrap. There are laws. There are labour codes. There are human tribunals (not that I agree with them, but they're there) there are courts. There are also government ministries of provincial jurisdiction.

There are a myriad ways of addressing every situation without the overlap of a feminist agency.

SUZANNE said...

jdave34 said...
"The Conservatives are not funded by taxpayer money,nor do they claim to speak for all Canadians."

--Suzanne, this line alone totally destroys any sort of credibility you may have.

1) Conservatives, like all political parties in Canada, are most certainly taxpayer-funded. I believe they get 1.75 for every vote they get in a general election. And that money doesn't come from the Elections Fairy


Well they shouldn't.

2) Stephen Harper and the CPC most certainly does speak for all Canadians on the international stage. If I'm not mistaken, he's used the words "On behalf of all Canadians..." on more than a couple of occasions. He negotiates on our behalf (and to our detriment, right softwood lumber?), and he speaks on our behalf, despite the fact that only about 1/3 of the country actually supports him.


Stephen Harper was elected. Stephen Harper does not pretend all Canadians agree with him. Feminists act like all women agree with them or should. They talk about women as traditional women do not exist, or they're poor victims or enemies. If they had been elected, they might have some credibility, but they're self-appointed spokespeople for women, which is what makes their spiel so obnoxious.

I suggest you find out where they hold the Civics courses for recently landed immigrants and sign up. You need to learn exactly how our government works before anything you say can be taken seriously.


And you need to take a course in manners. Being obnoxious doesn't put you in a good light.

RGM said...

Well Suzanne, congratulations to you for feeling as though you are equal to men. You are one woman, in a world with over 3 billion of them. I don't need to bring up the examples of systemic mass rape and mutilation in Congo, Darfur, or other regions of the world, because there are surely enough examples here at home that indicate that countless women do not enjoy your position. I will return to this shortly. Because you've reached a certain point, why would you seek to do away with an organization whose sole purpose is to help other women achieve that same status? You may enjoy the priveliges and securities of your status, but there are millions of women who have been held down by a system that does little to remedy these types of problems on their own. It's not entitlement, it's fairness.

To wit, do you believe that it is fair when a man, who had nothing to begin with, marries a woman who had financial stability, turns out to be a complete asshole that beat her and the children, finally forcing her to seek a divorce (I wonder why 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women?) and gets a sizeable settlement in the divorce that severely damages the mother's ability to parent her children and start her life again? Because this is not a tale that exists in a vacuum or in the abstract. It happened to real women, people that I know. Do you not have the compassion to support an organization that seeks to end this type of gender-based oppression to help your fellow women?

It is a rare day that I find myself in agreement with JDave, but his 4:36pm post is bang-on the mark. I can assure you that most of the women I know and associate with would far more readily side with his position in that post than yours.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, this is very interesting. So far, all the men are siding with SOW.

PGP said...

"All the men are siding with SOW."
Ahem......beg to differ dear!
;)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

"All the men are siding with SOW."
Ahem......beg to differ dear!


Yikes! Sorry. We have one enlightened man on board. Je m'excuse.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RGM, what exactly is SOW doing to help those oppressed women? Saying that you are doing something and actually doing it are two different things.

I want a good bang for my buck! Examples please.

Gabby in QC said...

It is really heart-warming to see a caballero like JDave34 come to the rescue of all the helpless damsels in distress in our society. The poor defenceless maidens are unable to take care of themselves, so they need a government agency (its apt acronym being SOW) to take care of all the poor victims. According to JDave, these victims include:

• PHYSICALLY ABUSED WOMEN
However, women are not the only ones who are victims of domestic violence. «Domestic violence is perpetrated by, and on, both men and women, and occurs in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.» cf. Wikipedia

And from Stats-Can, this interesting bit of info found at:
http://tinyurl.com/h5ks5
«An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.»

Many men tend not to report physical abuse, whereas usually women do, which may explain the higher incidence among women.

The next categories all fall under the heading of CHOICES. Although there may be cases of people, men and women, who are sucked into some of these situations, there are also many who consciously choose this route.

• STRIPPERS AND PROSTITUTES
If strippers and prostitutes are victims dragged into those "occupations," why are there proposals to legalize prostitution?

Fact: At the Federal Liberals’ national convention in March 2005, party members were urged to support a motion to legalize prostitution in Canada. It did not pass then, but who knows in future?

Fact: A parliamentary sub-committee of the Justice Committee was formed by the previous Liberal government to study the question of legalizing prostitution. Feminists such as Hedy Fry and Libby Davies, sitting on that committee, were strong advocates of legalization.

Fact: there's a growing number of organizations whose aim is to protect sex workers' rights. Two examples:

http://tinyurl.com/kj7vu
«COYOTE (an acronym for "Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics") is the central organization in the social movement to challenge traditional definitions of prostitution as a social problem. Using historical documents, this work focuses on COYOTE's campaign to sever prostitution from its historical association with sin, crime, and illicit sex, and place the social problem of prostitution firmly in the discourse of work, choice and civil rights.»

http://www.bayswan.org/NTFP.html
«The North American Task Force on Prostitution is thus a network of sex workers, sex workers' rights organizations, and individuals and organizations that support the rights of sex workers to organize on their own behalf, work safely and without legal repression, travel without legal restrictions, have families and raise children, and enjoy the same rights, responsibilities, and priviledges as other people."

• IMPLANTS
Some women are boobs - er, excuse me, I mean silly - to seek such "enhancements" but there are also many men who are willing to undergo "enlargement" by any means possible. No coercion, just stupidity - and it doesn't have any gender bias.

• PROMISCUITY AMONG YOUNG GIRLS
TV shows like "Sex and the City," written by a woman, and even the home-grown "Degrassi High" series, co-authored by a woman, tend to legitimize promiscuous sexual activity among teens and even pre-teens. Parents, what are the children watching?

• WOMAN'S CHOICE OVER HER BODY
Unless I'm mistaken, abortion is STILL legal in Canada, so what is our Knight in Shining Armour referring to?

I would think that having all the concerns he expressed in his post, JDave34 would support REAL (Realistic, Equal, Active for Life) Women of Canada, an organization which "believes that women should have career choices which include the financial option of remaining at home, if they choose .... At the very least, government policies should remain neutral on the issue of career choice for women. Public policy should treat the woman at home and in the workplace equally."

PS: Welcome back, Joanne.

Mac said...

Thanks, Gabby! You saved me from having to write up more-or-less the same thing.

There are already resources in place to deal with most if not all of the problems which have been identified by jdave and others.

Why do we need another redundant bureaucracy, particularly one which is a left-over Trudeautopia relic? WE DON'T!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yes, thanks Gabby. You've made some awesome points there. I especially like the reference to spousal abuse pertaining to men as well as women. My understanding is that this is more likely to occur in a homosexual relationship than heterosexual, but it does still happen. Emotional abuse is another area which is especially difficult for men to deal with.

As Mac said, there are resources out there for both men and women who are in difficulty. If we need more resources, then let's set them up as an iniative that doesn't discriminate according to gender.

Or if we have to kowtow to SOW, then let's make sure that we are funding every other special interest group that is making a positive contribution as well. eg. Real Women.

Mac said...

Joanne, I understand the thought in your last paragraph but I disagree. I have much more respect for groups like REAL Women who don't depend on the government for their day-to-day expenses than those who don't even attempt to support themselves and always have their hands out.

Canadians are a charitable people and we don't mind contributing to worthy causes. Corporations seek groups to support.

If a group like the Status of Women provide unique and meaningful services to the community and the country, especially if they have a broadbased appeal, I'm sure they would have no problem securing private funding to continue their work.

If their service is less broadbased and only appeals to a splinter of special interest groups, the private funding they can secure will be less because the call for their services is limited.

Finally, back to the Status of Women, does anyone know when equality will be achieved? Is there a line in the sand somewhere where governments can finally say "We're there!" or are Canadians going to pay for Status of Women forever?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Joanne, I understand the thought in your last paragraph but I disagree.

O.K. You're banned. (Kidding!!!)

Thanks for your input, Mac, and for the record folks, MAC DOES NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH ME. HERE IS THE EVIDENCE. HE IS NOT ONE OF MY "CHEERLEADERS"! In fact, I repect people that put forward their own view, but do it in a way as to address the argument, not to denigrate the person. Thank you, Mac.

Actually, I was being a tiny bit facetious with that remark. I don't think it's fair to fund one special interest group and not another, but I agree with you that the free market will support the cause if it is important and if it resonates with the public.

Perhaps SOW could get it's funding under the United Way umbrella or some other charitable organization.

Realistically, this is a political hot potato. Can you imagine Bev Oda sending out a trial balloon that SOW might be cut off from the government trough???

The left would be crying women-haters (misogynists for JDave), bigots and everything else under the sun.

I would love to hear from any woman who has had some direct assistance from SOW other than working for them.

jdave34 said...

"And you need to take a course in manners. Being obnoxious doesn't put you in a good light."

I'll take obnoxious over ignorant any day of the week.

Gabby in QC said...

Joanne, I was rereading some of the comments, and you corrected yourself for using "obsolescent." You were right to use it to begin with. Here's the reference from the online dictionary/thesaurus I use when in doubt - it's a great resource:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source new!
Main Entry: antiquated
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: obsolete
Synonyms: aged, ancient, antediluvian, antique, archaic, dated, elderly, fusty*, hoary, moldy, obsolescent, old, old hat*, old-fangled, old-fashioned, out-of-date, outmoded, outworn, passé, superannuated
Antonyms: cutting edge, forward-looking, fresh, modern, modernistic, new, recent

Have a good day!

Jay said...

You useless bunch of twats. What the hell is wrong with you? I could give two shits about what you think about your own personal lives, go ahead and be a useless fuck cushion. Just keep your nose outta matters that affect my life not yours, ie SSM.

You may want to read your good book.

1 Timothy 2:11 Women not authorized to Preach "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent with all subjection; for Adam was first formed then Eve. Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor".

God bless Canada

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jay, at first I was going to blow away that comment due to language. Then I decided to keep it there to remind me why I don't want to join the Liberal camp.

Thank you for showing us all what intolerance really is.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Gabby! So that's why my spell-checker didn't correct me.

Take that JDave!

Gabby in QC said...

Welcome, Joanne.

I don't know why, but I'm sometimes very curious about the aliases people choose for posting in the blogosphere. Here's what I found when I googled Jay Birds:

"A handsome, noisy bird, the jay is sometimes resented by humans for its aggressiveness in driving other birds away."

Before anyone goes on a rant about MY alias, I chose mine because I recognize I tend to be a yakker ...

Jay said...

Your welcome. Hopefully your blog will still be here after all the REAL women (not you girls) beat the crap out of you old SOW's.

Whats wrong with my post anyways? Don't you read the bible???? I figured you social conservareformers would have had that one written on the back of your hand like all those you spout against gays.

The fact of the matter is you SOW's are ruining your own lives (nobody cares, really) and of those who fought for gender parity (those I do care and respect). I have ZERO respect for anyone who would take a step backward for all women for the sake of a handful of bitter old ladies.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Gabby, thanks for the laugh.

Jay, just curious about one thing. How did we get on to a discussion about same-sex marriage here? I don't recall opening up that topic. I thought we were discussing women's rights.

Jay said...

Well, I was being pre-emptive with my attack Joanne, though in the past we have traded posts in a very cordial fashion. I had respect for you up until I saw this on your blog. Very sad.

Back to SSM, it was brought up because you social conservatives are very predictable. Status of women, SSM, abortion, next thing you folk will want a ban on condoms. You seem to want to be in everyones lives and bedrooms by removing the very things that have empowered people to carry on with dignified, productive and happy lives. From which everyone in Canada benefits.

Thats why I am here with pretty nasty language. You have went from a repectable blogger with some good points to a smelly piece of shit. All in one post, great work. Seems you are a trully worthy of being called a member of the CPC.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jay, I still fail to see why calling for an end to government funding for SOW is offending you so much.

PGP said...

Just in case anyone here thinks that JAY has an ounce of honest civility or integrity I invite you to use the URL here to see his comments posted to my blog....

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18739280&postID=115353796755395839

Scroll down to the last few comments
OMMAG

Joanne (True Blue) said...

PGP - His remarks seemed very egocentric and insensitive. The one left by "anonymous" was disgraceful.

Jay said...

I remember you pgp,
the one who thinks that foundations for diseases are special interst groups when dealing with AIDS and not when dealing any other disease. So you may want to fill in the readers about that little morsel pgp. When your friend gets sick the group is heaven sent but when it deals with a disease that has been stigamatized and associated (wrongly I might add) with gay people you consider it a special interest group. Who has no credibility, again?

Like I said before on the comment you linked too. I hope your friend is doing well.

Gotta admit, you have a poor way of making a point, all you did was confirm the two faced nature of a memebr of the CPC, well done pgp!

Gabby in QC said...

«Your welcome.»

Did you mean "you're welcome" as in what to say after "thank you" or did you mean "your welcome" - as in "your welcome home gift was super"?

Some of us use a form of shorthand, some of us are short-tempered, some of us are short (vertically challenged) ... not that there's anything wrong with that. Vive la différence!

Jay said...

Sorry gabby in qc.
You're welcome is what i meant. I'd nit pick your english but you don't seem to have a blog, at least one easily found. I make quite a few spelling errors, due to dyslexia. Sometimes I get way too far ahead of myself to ensure I put the letters where others need them.

Hopefully this post suits you.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I still don't understand why we are discussing gay people here or AIDS. What has this got to do with government funding of SOW? I'm sorry but I really don't get the connection.

Jay said...

Plus pgp, the majority of text of the reply I posted on your site were YOUR own words, not mine. I put your words in quotation marks to highlight how you are two faced.

Jay said...

We are discussing these things Joanne because I hijacked your thread. I threw a few things out that no bigot could refuse and look, nobody is talking about the SOW's now but you.

You must really love keeping company with these people but enjoy it all you can because the CPC are like cicadas, meaning they only get to emerge briefly every 13 years or so.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It's not always about you, Jay.

Gabby in QC said...

"I'd nit pick your english but you don't seem to have a blog, at least one easily found. I make quite a few spelling errors, due to dyslexia."

No sarcasm intended: I found these links which may help with your dyslexia:
http://tinyurl.com/s9bah
Controversial dyslexia treatment 'works' - 05 November 2002

http://tinyurl.com/s2le
CBS News site:
Dyslexia
Treatment Getting Raves In Britain
Oct. 22, 2003

http://www.dorecenters.com/
Here you can request a free informational DVD on the DORE program to help people with dyslexia. Hope the links help.

BTW, don't bother looking for my blog. I don't have one.

Jay said...

And its not all about you blogburst women either. By wanting to do away with SWC or as you call it SOW you are forcing everyone to deal with your issues.

I should tell you why I am concerned about SWC.I have a sister and my mother works in a womens shelter in Alberta. I think those are very good reasons. Maybe you anti-SWC girls may want to pay a visit to one sometime. It'll open your mind if you have one of your own.

Jay said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joanne (True Blue) said...

I should tell you why I am concerned about SWC.I have a sister and my mother works in a womens shelter in Alberta.

Does SOW fund that, Jay?

BTW, your last comment was a bit over-the-top, so I had to delete it.

Gabby in QC said...

"I've got a cure for you too gabby"

Oh well, just trying to be helpful ... maybe I should have looked up anger management instead.

liberal supporter said...

Another fine thread for the "if you thought you were undecided, read this" mirror...

(Thanks for turning off the moderation Joanne, now I don't need to look a cretin posting over and over)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks for turning off the moderation Joanne,

As long as Jay behaves.

liberal supporter said...

There are many ways to look like a cretin. I mentioned one. You mentioned another.

Jay said...

Sorry didn't know about her and your sensibilies. I apologize.

Got a little heated, as gabby decided to become a health information dispersal service when she had no reason to.

Jay said...

SOW does not fund anything, as it does not exist. The SWC does not fund womens shelters. The SWC focuses its work in three areas: improving women's economic autonomy and well-being, eliminating systemic violence against women and children, and advancing women's human rights. By eliminating systematic violence we reduce the need and costs of womens shelters. Unfortunately my mother would be unemployed but its a small cost if the shelter is not full of abused women and children. I think she could live with that.

My sister is helped by this and also by the promotion of gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of this country. Without the SWC we probably would not have what equality we currently have and I think we still have quite a ways to go.

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/about/index_e.html

I can not believe I am the one standing up for the SWC.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. Jay. I am sympathetic to the plight of abused women. But how exactly is SOW or SWC helping? I can say that I am against all forms of violence. Should I then get funding for that? Shouldn't I have to be proving that the money is having some kind of result?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. I just figured it out. If you fund it, you won't be called a bigot. I get it now.

Liberals like to throw money at stuff to pretend they're doing something. Conservatives want results. And n'er the two shall meet.

Jay said...

Hopefully all forms of violence are covered in same shape or form.

There is a tendency for issues relating to women being centralized, as well as for aboriginals. I would hope there is some accountability with the money, that I agree with you on. I think the problem may lie in being held accountable by departments outside SWC that may want to tell them where they should be using it. Effectively taking control of SWC from the women it is supposed to help.

It would be difficult to gauge the effect of SWC over a small time scale but it does show results over the longer term. The problem lies with the patience of people who want monthly reports.

Jay said...

It's not pretending to fix a problem Joanne. Its a strategy. I, myself, am very fiscally conservative, I would even call myself a red tory, and I have no qualms about money being spent in this way. I think its more of a different view on how something can be done to achieve something. Conservatives want results now and move on to the next issue. If only things were that simple.

What would you replace SWC with, seeing that its goal is very important and you stated that you are sympathetic to the abuse of women?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I would even call myself a red tory,

Gah!!!!! Those are evil words on this blog!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

What would you replace SWC with, seeing that its goal is very important and you stated that you are sympathetic to the abuse of women?

I think this is an issue that would be better dealt with at the municipal level.

Red Tory said...

Gah!!!!! Those are evil words on this blog!

My ears were burning...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

My ears were burning...

lol! Well, at least I wasn't sticking any pins into a doll.

Red Tory said...

Hmmm. I wondered what that tingly feeling in my backside was.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ah, the man I love to hate.

Red, do you know that you are #29 right now on the list of sites regularly sending people to Blogging Tories? You would probably get some kind of prize if you were Conservative. You're slipping though. Your were higher up the ladder yesterday.

I'm sure Stephen Taylor is very happy for the free publicity.

Check it out!

Red Tory said...

Whatever. I frequently make reference to the Blogging Tories. After all, you folks are a constant source of amusement and bewilderment.

Honestly, I don't keep track of such things and could really care less, but if you want to send me a Golden Turd Award or something, feel free.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

if you want to send me a Golden Turd Award or something, feel free

Sorry, but I think Calgary Grit's got you beat. He's currently at #10.

Red Tory said...

Nice to know I'm in good company.

Jay said...

Municipal level? Are you aware that not all provinces/territories have municipalities? If I were in newfoundland living tax free on a piece of land (yes we can still do it) outside of a town who will deal with abuse of women? It's would be the wild wild west all over again.

I have to admit, you surprised me with that answer, I was expecting you to suggest mandatory minimum sentencing for the abusers.

Got to love how you conservareformers like to deal with matters after the fact (once someone is beaten or killed) instead of being more proactive and preventing the abuse and loss of life in the first place.

Where are the results of the war on drugs that conservareformers like to wage. Last I knew drug use was on the rise. Thats a pretty damning indication that no results are being shown and money is still being diverted there. Maybe you should focus your energy on that, at least we know 100% thats it is a waste of money.

I am sorry you don't like red tories but unfortunately those are the only real tories left. ;)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I am sorry you don't like red tories but unfortunately those are the only real tories left. ;)

I don't think RT would be too happy with that moniker. On the other hand, he wouldn't have to change the initials. "Real Tory". Sweet.

Jay, on the issue of SOW, once again I am asking you what they have done to help the plight of abused women everywhere in Canada.

jdave34 said...

Pardon me for asking Joanne, but why do you continue to refer to Status of Women Canada as SOW instead of its real acronym SWC?

Are you trying to be funny by describing a group that tries to help women as fat pigs? If so, you're a total (self-censored, but it rhymes with hunt).

Why don't you *gasp* go to the SWC website and read about what they do? Oh yeah, you don't need to. Research is for stupid liberals. You get your opinions from other hysterical bloggers with axes to grind.

Tell you what, let's turn this around: Why don't you tell me of what REAL women are doing to help the plight of abused women in Canada? Besides campaigning to have the one government organization dedicated to women and women's rights disbanded.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Real Women do not have to justify their existence due to the fact that they don't get government funding. They get DONATIONS!!!!

jdave34 said...

Funny logic Joanne.

They get their money from donations so they don't have to explain what they do. Because that's how ALL charitable organizations work. Don't ask the Cancer Society about the work they do, they're funded by donations.

OK, let's try this another way. Let's suppose that SWC is disbanded. What plans do REAL women have to fill the holes that will be left. Are REAL women prepared to take up the cause for ALL women, or just the Christian, married, hetero ones? What do REAL women plan on doing? Do they plan on doing anything? Maybe they don't have to do anything, because women no longer face problems and obstacles anymore. That IS what REAL Women claim, isn't it?

jdave34 said...

And you never answered my question about your use of the acronym SOW. Do you call all groups that try to help women fat pigs?

jdave34 said...

Just one more thing:

After all your whining about respect, and how you hate name-calling on blogs, your constant use of the incorrect SOW acronym reveals you to be a world-class hypocrite. Seems like you don't mind name calling, as long as you're the one doing it. Nice double-standard, and way to raise the tone.

pretty sleazy, if you ask me.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Do you call all groups that try to help women fat pigs?

And do you call all women who disagree with you a disagreeable word that "rhymes with hunt"?

You are dangerously close to being either banned or having your comments deleted. You are a guest on this blog and may stay if you are acting with civility. Otherwise *poof!* You're gone!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

For anyone who gives a *ahem* care, JDave has once again been banned due to language. If anyone other than JDave has an issue with this, they can file a grievance, and it will be duly noted.

Another interesting item from Real Women:

"...Never is it mentioned that the Status of Women, including women's shelters themselves, are matters of provincial jurisdiction only. They do not fall within federal jurisdiction and there is no reason why the federal government is funding so generously these provincial issues and organizations. Further, there is no reason why the Status of Women portfolio is included in the Cabinet."

Interesting.

Red Tory said...

The thing I find most interesting about this REAL Women v. SWC thing is the fact that REAL applied for a grant and apparently was turned down. So, if REAL thinks that SWC is so irrelevant, out of touch, unnecessary, etc. why did they apply for a grant in the first place? Wouldn't that be contravening their principles? And had the grant been issued to them would they still have their knickers in a twist about the existence of SWC? And furthermore, what was the grant application for, exactly?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, my guess is that they would be trying to speak out for the rest of Canadian women who don't share the same values as SoW.

Red Tory said...

You didn’t really answer the question Joanne, but simply offered up some hypothetical speculation. I’m not being facetious here, but why don’t you pose the question to the folks at REAL. Or for that matter to SWC. You seem to have some time on your hands, why not dig a little deeper? I for one would be interested to know. I think these are legitimate questions and both organizations should be willing to provide answers to them. And hey, if nothing else, it will provide some amusement should you end up getting the run around from one or both groups. Go for it!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

You seem to have some time on your hands, why not dig a little deeper?

Be my guest. Many of you fail to realize that my original post was commenting on the success of the blogburst and the fact that it was picked up in MSM. As a sidebar, I happen to agree with many of the issues that Real Women support.

Red, why don't you follow up with some of the orginal organizers of the blogburst, if you are so interested?

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
Red, my guess is that they would be trying to speak out for the rest of Canadian women who don't share the same values as SoW.


I'm sorry, that seems a pretty disingenuous answer. For an organization that does nothing but rail against "liberal entitlement" in the form of government grants/funding to then turn around and ask for the same entitlement...

Sounds like the same crowd that decry wasteful government spending on social programs, but remain silent when it comes to government welfare given to very profitable corporations.

SUZANNE said...

For an organization that does nothing but rail against "liberal entitlement" in the form of government grants/funding to then turn around and ask for the same entitlement...


REAL doesn't feel entitled in the sense that the government OWES it money. However, if one women's group gets money, then grants should be open to many kinds of women's groups, not just those that are radical feminist. That's the point. If it were a matter of REAL women being the only non-feminist organization being denied out of a group of many non-feminist organizations that were granted money, you might have a point.

The point is the systematic exclusion of non radfical feminist groups.

That is not representative.

As citizens, we have the right to have our taxpayer money spent in a manner that we see fit.

counter-coulter said...

SUZANNE said...
That is not representative.

As citizens, we have the right to have our taxpayer money spent in a manner that we see fit.


Actually, you already have that right, its called voting. If you're unhappy about the way your MP is spending money, vote them out. But the idea that because you don't personally agree with the objective of an organization that receives government money is somehow not representation is not only misguided, its wrong.

Dianne said...

I was involved with REAL Women, way back in the beginning when it was just a group of women sitting around the kitchen table. I was upset because they got all this tax money and they spent it on groups that I disagreed with morally. They give money to Lesbian groups, pro-choice groups, pro-marijuana groups, anti-spanking groups, and other groups that I do not agree with to defend their cause.
The E in REAL is for Equality, for of course REAL Women is for Equality of Women, but they respect and follow the Natural Law.
There were some times over the years when REAL Women were invited by Status of Women to attend conferences, but many of the women attending, especially Lesbians who were present, refused to be in the same room as members of REAL Women. They shouted insults when a member of REAL women tried to speak. I have seen this happen many times, when other women shouted us down and did not allow us to speak. This does not promote equality of women if we cannot respectfully listen to each other.
REAL Women tried to get grants from the Government at different times so they could also have some of the tax money Status of Women had. But they would be refused. Court cases are very expensive and I think it is only fair that REAL Women have a piece of the pot so that their view can also be represented. I am willing to bet that nearly half the women in Canada prefer REAL Women to Status of Women, or would prefer REAL Women if they knew what it was.
REAL Women better represents my beliefs.
I have helped found a women's shelter, but it is pro-life, against contraception, and we are pro-father and pro-traditional-family, much different then Status of Women supported shelters. And this shelter does get United Way Funding because it is a good sheter that does good work.
Many women in Canada have very strong moral beliefs that respect the Natural Law, which Status of Women does not. We have just as much right to be heard and to receive government funding so we can also be represented equally in the country and in the court systems. Since many women who would be better represented by REAL Women do not receive pay for their valuable work in the home, they do not have the cash available for huge donations.
I also do not agree with National Daycare, as I believe if a women chooses to work outside of the home she must pay for the care of her children with her own funds. The new way the Harper Government is distributing the daycare money, is much more equal for all women as I have a right to receive that money too. That is why I originally became involved with REAL Women because they were fighting for equality for the women who chose to stay in the home to be there for their children. I gave up a banking career to stay home, and I have been in the home for 25 years now and it is not fair that I do not have a pension and I have not been able to receive any renumeration while my friend who works outside the home has received great tax deductions over the years for her daycare expenses.
As we said the day we came up with the name REAL Women, Real women are not represented fairly. Status of Women can either be called SOW, as a noun, for the fat pig, because they get such huge amounts of funding, or they can live up to the name SOW, from the verb to sow, to scatter seed.
Status of Women gets huge amounts of money to represents many causes that many women do not agree with.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Awesome. Thanks Suzanne and Dianne. I really appreciate your input here.

Red Tory said...

Suzanne (The Fetal Avenger!) -- REAL doesn't feel entitled in the sense that the government OWES it money. However, if one women's group gets money, then grants should be open to many kinds of women's groups, not just those that are radical feminist.

Interesting logic at work here… So, if a privately funded “Women’s Group” that advocated the position that women should stay at home and raise families as opposed to being in the workplace asked for a federal grant from the Status of Women Canada Agency, they too should be given money? How about if that “Women’s Group” opposed abortion. How does this in any way advance the objectives of SWC? And how is it “radical” to ask for pay equity, fair treatment in the workplace, and other aspects of parity that men take for granted?

Cherniak_WTF said...

What twisted claptrap REAL women seems to spout…

You see, I have no problem with your views – heck if they work for you, why not?
What I find objectionable is you trying to shove it down my throat and coating it under the guise of morality….

Now, my political bend is more Libertarian in the social sense, I find it odd that you’d vaguely try to associate “Natural Law” with your view. Sound more like a distortion to justify being a bigot.
Thomas Jefferson invoked “Natural Law” reasoning in the Declaration of Independence to protect people from the draconian interpretations such as yours.

The “Natural Law” is not one that state that serving God’s will as the greatest good.
From your brief diatribe, I’d guess that you are anti-lesbian, anti-abortion, anti-legalization, and pro-spanking…
Those are your choices, and I respect them inasmuch as it’s your right to follow them but it crosses the line when you ask me to abide by them.

Your shelter may do good work, but when you take advantage of women in need by infusing your beliefs while they are in crisis, I would call that thuggish brainwashing.

Since many women who would be better represented by REAL Women do not receive pay for their valuable work in the home, they do not have the cash available for huge donations. I also do not agree with National Daycare, as I believe if a woman chooses to work outside of the home she must pay for the care of her children with her own funds.
Are you implying that you should get paid for work you do around the house? It’s your choosing to stay home after all – now you seem to complain about that fact –

I strongly agree with National Daycare. It lowers overall social costs in the long run. What I would like is more choice. In Quebec, the system works quite well, but I think that if you choose to stay home, you should get the equivalent of the daycare cost.

Let’s not beat around the bush – the views of REAL women, as stated on the website are radical. Stop the doublespeak: You are right wing fundamental Christians. You can live your life anyway you choose – just don’t impose your views on the rest of us.

SUZANNE said...

Interesting logic at work here… So, if a privately funded “Women’s Group” that advocated the position that women should stay at home and raise families as opposed to being in the workplace asked for a federal grant from the Status of Women Canada Agency, they too should be given money? How about if that “Women’s Group” opposed abortion. How does this in any way advance the objectives of SWC? And how is it “radical” to ask for pay equity, fair treatment in the workplace, and other aspects of parity that men take for granted?

SOW requires the group to be feminist. That is what we are objecting to. The means of implementing its objectives are WRONG.

It is simply WRONG for SOW to only cater to one group of women. That is what we object to. We women have a democratic right to be represented by the agency that is supposedly devoted to our interest. We pay taxes for this, we should have a say in how this agency is run.

Cherniak wrote

You see, I have no problem with your views – heck if they work for you, why not?
What I find objectionable is you trying to shove it down my throat and coating it under the guise of morality….


Oh like feminists NEVER do that..

The “Natural Law” is not one that state that serving God’s will as the greatest good.
From your brief diatribe, I’d guess that you are anti-lesbian, anti-abortion, anti-legalization, and pro-spanking…
Those are your choices, and I respect them inasmuch as it’s your right to follow them but it crosses the line when you ask me to abide by them.


You can do as you please. But this is a democracy. We get to have a say about how government is run. So-cons are told how to live, too. That's politics.


Your shelter may do good work, but when you take advantage of women in need by infusing your beliefs while they are in crisis, I would call that thuggish brainwashing.

Feminists NEVER do that either....
Right.

The double standard here is ridiculous.

That is precisely what we're standing up against...the double standard. As citizens we get to say how the government is run. We do not want an agency that is allegedly devoted to our welfare to only operate on feminist premises.

Let’s not beat around the bush – the views of REAL women, as stated on the website are radical. Stop the doublespeak: You are right wing fundamental Christians. You can live your life anyway you choose – just don’t impose your views on the rest of us.

But feminists can do the same and use OUR taxmoney to do it?

Wrong. This is a democracy. We get to have a voice, and we should have a voice.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well said, Suzanne!

If that is the Liberal view of things; that all dissent should be squelched and only feminists causes publicly funded, then I am even more convinced that I am on the 'right' side.

Dianne said...

"Are you implying that you should get paid for work you do around the house? It’s your choosing to stay home after all – now you seem to complain about that fact"

What I am implying here is My husband should be able to claim the childcare tax credit, or be able to pay me a just wage for taking care of the children for equality to happen.

Also Cherniak_WTF,
You are not speaking about the Natural Law. While it is true that it is God's law, God's pedagogy, even the German government has learned its value. After Hitler, the German legal system returned to Natural law. Natural lay prescribes for man the ways of conduct that help us live together harmoniously. It is not a Christian thing, as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and many others also respect it. I did not get into respecting the Natural law because of Christianity. It was by actually learning to repect the Natural law that I got into Christianity.
When my Father-in-law dies from cancer and I started researching cancer and discovered that the birth control pill was a major carcinigen, and that most of our food was filled with chemicals that could cause cancer, I changed my lifestyle and the way I eat. I go to a naturopath to help me with my health. I try to live as natually as is possible in this society respecting mother nature. So I choose to not use chemicals such as contraceptives, and I hope that eventually others will realize we have to live much more naturally if we want to have better lives.
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man and you know this because you know it is wrong to kill others(one of the laws), that this is not good for the common good. It is what is good for the common good that I am interested in and that I try to respect.
This law is called "natural," it belongs to human nature. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding inside each of us; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. As I said, we know it is wrong to kill and we have to respect that law in all ways, which includes abortion. It is just old fashion common sense, and that is what I try to live by.

Dianne said...

"Are you implying that you should get paid for work you do around the house? It’s your choosing to stay home after all – now you seem to complain about that fact"

What I am implying here is My husband should be able to claim the childcare tax credit, or be able to pay me a just wage for taking care of the children for equality to happen.

Also Cherniak_WTF,
You are not speaking about the Natural Law. While it is true that it is God's law, God's pedagogy, even the German government has learned its value. After Hitler, the German legal system returned to Natural law. Natural lay prescribes for man the ways of conduct that help us live together harmoniously. It is not a Christian thing, as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and many others also respect it. I did not get into respecting the Natural law because of Christianity. It was by actually learning to repect the Natural law that I got into Christianity.
When my Father-in-law dies from cancer and I started researching cancer and discovered that the birth control pill was a major carcinigen, and that most of our food was filled with chemicals that could cause cancer, I changed my lifestyle and the way I eat. I go to a naturopath to help me with my health. I try to live as natually as is possible in this society respecting mother nature. So I choose to not use chemicals such as contraceptives, and I hope that eventually others will realize we have to live much more naturally if we want to have better lives.
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man and you know this because you know it is wrong to kill others(one of the laws), that this is not good for the common good. It is what is good for the common good that I am interested in and that I try to respect.
This law is called "natural," it belongs to human nature. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding inside each of us; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. As I said, we know it is wrong to kill and we have to respect that law in all ways, which includes abortion. It is just old fashion common sense, and that is what I try to live by.

Dianne said...

And a further point SOW's initiatives are against the the dignity of motherhood. The feminism of the 70s is no longer relative and needs to be replaced by an authentic feminism that asserts women’s rights as mothers. A true feminism seeks recognition of the mother’s irreplaceable contribution to the common good and, at the same time, assistance for motherhood. True feminism, and I consider myself a feminist, asks for recognition of women’s own importance in society. A mother main purpose in life is the education of her children. She has to educate her children on what life is about. Only the mother can properly do that. Sure she can have help from others but she is responsible for making sure that those she allows to teach her children teach them properly. She can leave them in daycares but she has to make sure that the teachers there are giving her children good example, because we know that children learn by example. A mother has a very important job in our society ans society has to support her in this.
SOW devalues the importance of mother.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Suzanne:
Because you object to some Feminazis does it mean you should impose your views on all women?

I find it amusing that people who clamor for respect continue to use the acronym SOW…

As citizen you do get your say but it’s no longer a democracy when you impose your will. Live and let live….

Johanne:
Did you even understand what I wrote, or did you just have a knee-jerk reaction? REAL women are not supposed to be partisan, yet you seem to imply that you are Con… I wrote that I’m more attuned to Libertarians in social aspects.
Basically, your line seems to be: We are right, everyone else is wrong – we most be obeyed… all the while looking for a strong patriarchal society (hardly equality IMO).

Diane:
Sounds like you want your cake and eat it too….
No one is denying the importance of being a mother. You state that it’s a choice that women make to enter the workforce and that they should pay their way.
It’s also a choice to have children and stay at home – if you can’t afford it, then don’t have children.
I have written that I think you should have a tax credit if you stay at home equal to a national daycare one – you sound like you want an exclusive tax credit that only benefits the stay at home moms – I’m proposing something inclusive that does not prejudice all women into a certain lifestyle.

Natural law has many perspectives (depending on ones political agenda it seems), your interpretation may work for you and your beliefs – again usurping it for your core values does not mean you should impose it on others.

When you start talking about naturopathy and other utter nonsense (for that it what it is to me), I get a better image of the kind of quackery you may believe in. The difference is that I respect your right to such nonsense – it is after all a matter of faith over science. At the same time, I don’t see you respecting the rights of others. So this talk of a double standard is hypocritical.

You are using an interpretation of yours to justify your beliefs and impose then on all. You don’t believe in the right to abortion because you think that life starts at conception. All the science that will tell you otherwise will never convince you – again faith over reality. I say that if you don’t like the right to abortion, then you should live by your code of conduct and not impose it on others. Are you that self-righteous that you think your way is the only way?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Basically, your line seems to be: We are right, everyone else is wrong – we most be obeyed… all the while looking for a strong patriarchal society

I have no idea how you were able to derive that statement from what I said.

Cherniak_WTF said...

A mother main purpose in life is the education of her children.

That’s your main purpose in life. Some women find children as well as a career, work, hedonisms, education, travel, social causes and self-fulfillment to be their goals. Not all women want children (and please don’t call them defective for that).
If you find that your purpose is educating your children and that sacrifice makes you feel good, so be it. Some find it more appealing to be able to speak with women who have a wider circle than the self-indulgence of children. Not all stay and home moms are like that, granted but I can tell you that in this little piece of suburbia, children’s potty training seems to be the number one concern…
Let’s put it this way, I have children, they are part of my identity, but they are not my identity and value of self-worth.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Joanne: What is it that you agree with on REAL?

Do women have a right to abortion?
Is it okay to have SSM?
Is homosexuality okay?
Should we do more to separate church and state?
Should divorce be allowed?

Please tell us some of your views and why...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Cherniak, first of all, I can't tell by your profile whether you are male or female. Not that it makes a difference, but it helps to know where you're coming from. Then I'll explain my views.

counter-coulter said...

SUZANNE said...

That is precisely what we're standing up against...the double standard. As citizens we get to say how the government is run. We do not want an agency that is allegedly devoted to our welfare to only operate on feminist premises.

But feminists can do the same and use OUR taxmoney to do it?

Wrong. This is a democracy. We get to have a voice, and we should have a voice.


I noticed how you avoided responding to my post that already addressed this ridiculous notion of yours about "representation". It seems that we have a group here that wants to impose its moral code on the rest of the country but either doesn't have the votes or the political will to get it accomplished. If there are so many of you that feel this way then why not elect those that would change what you want changed? Could it be that there really aren't as many of you as you claim and that the true majority of Canadians are fine with the work that the SWC is doing?

Also, how does the SWC impact your life? What are they forcing you to do that is such a problem? My guess to your answer would be "nothing". You merely don't believe in the causes that they've granted money to and are throwing what amounts to a tantrum because your not getting your way.

Dianne said...

Having a child means that you have to educate it. You can still have a full time job and educate child or have someone else do that for you. I am all for that. I have stayed at home 25 years but I also have a degree in Mathematics and run a tutoring business from my home and I write for various jounals. Staying at home does not mean just potty training.
In the case of moral issues though there is a clear right and wrong. SSM=wrong, abortion=wrong....I am not imposing that on you, I am inviting you to search for the truth.

counter-coulter said...

Dianne Wood said...
In the case of moral issues though there is a clear right and wrong. SSM=wrong, abortion=wrong....I am not imposing that on you, I am inviting you to search for the truth.


Ah, there's the rub. You're not just inviting anyone to "search for the truth", rather you would have those moral standards you prefer imposed on others by the likes of REAL. Where as Suzanne quipped: "REAL doesn't feel entitled in the sense that the government OWES it money.", you already disproved in your statement: "We have just as much right to be heard and to receive government funding so we can also be represented equally in the country and in the court systems." What's being sought by REAL is not representation, since they exercise that right already by doing things such as petitioning the government, but rather what they (and you and Suzanne) want is to petition the government on the government's dime. If you feel strongly about a position great, give all the money you want to REAL or whomever, but don't pretend that you're not getting representation because your personal views aren't put in to law.

Dianne said...

Counter-coulter you are right. Neither should get Government funding. Why should SOW get it or REAL. Both should survive on donations.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Both should survive on donations.

Makes sense to me.

counter-coulter said...

Dianne Wood said...
Counter-coulter you are right. Neither should get Government funding. Why should SOW get it or REAL. Both should survive on donations.


That's an easy one. If there truly is a majority view that feels that this agency should no longer receive government funding, then it should just be a matter of voting in the MPs that will cut off the pruse strings to it. My guess is that a majority of Canadians are fine with the concept of the SCW and don't have an inclination to dissolve it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CC- That's a pretty simplistic POV. I doubt a whole country would make that the single issue on which they cast their ballot.

Voting is a complex integration of selection between the leader, party and candidate in Canada.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Cherniak, first of all, I can't tell by your profile whether you are male or female. Not that it makes a difference, but it helps to know where you're coming from. Then I'll explain my views.
That's a rather lame cop out don't you think? The Feminazis would have not problems telling me their views...
Obviously, my gender does make a difference but I fail to see the connection between your views and my gender....

Cherniak_WTF said...

Diane:
You state that SSM is wrong and so it abortion. No argument, nothing (thank you).
I have seeked out my own moral code and accept SSM and the right to abortion.
Here is the difference, I would never tell YOU how to live your life - yet you seem eager to tell me how I should conduct mine.

I have respect for your views (even if I personnally find them askew), yet you see nothing wrong with imposing yours...

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
CC- That's a pretty simplistic POV. I doubt a whole country would make that the single issue on which they cast their ballot.


Why is that a simplistic POV? There are many instances where voters vote or don't vote for an official based on a single issue, abortion for example.

Voting is a complex integration of selection between the leader, party and candidate in Canada.

Voting is what it is, a democratic method of selecting representation. Your (and Suzanne's and Dianne's) case seems to consist soley of "I object to this so therefore my tax dollars shouldn't pay for it". That is not representative democracy. We do not get to choose to which programes our tax dollars get directed based on personal taste. If I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to already profitable companies, the only recourse I have available to me is to either petition my representative to vote for or against something or to elect a different one that I think will vote the way I want them to.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

the only recourse I have available to me is to either petition my representative to vote for or against something or to elect a different one that I think will vote the way I want them to.

O.K. Yes, people can certainly do that. But why can't all sides of an issue be represented by public funding rather than just one?

BTW, I'm still wondering if Cherniak is male or female, and also you, CC.

Neither of you is obliged to say, of course. I'm just curious because most of the dissenters here have been men.

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
O.K. Yes, people can certainly do that. But why can't all sides of an issue be represented by public funding rather than just one?


Because that concept makes no sense and is antithetical to a representive government. If government programmes are put in place by elected representatives, why should funding be put in place to dissolve those very programmes? While everyone has a right (and maybe even an obligation) to express their opinion on an issue, they do not have a right to have their opinion funded by the government. For example, should groups that oppose socialized medicine receive government funding so they can launch campaigns to have Health Canada dissolved?

BTW, I'm still wondering if Cherniak is male or female, and also you, CC.

I'm with Cherniak on this one. What difference does it make when it comes to this debate, unless its to be used as an "only women should be allowed to speak on it" device to squelch debate. But, for the record, I am male and a parent.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CC - Thanks for your candor. I am just wishing that a female would comment supporting Status Of Women.

As for your comment, I think it is reasonable to expect that certain government programs may in fact outlive their usefulness as time goes on, and therefore it is reasonable to examine their efficacy with respect to intended goals and results.

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
CC - Thanks for your candor. I am just wishing that a female would comment supporting Status Of Women.


My pleasure. As for female views, maybe your site doesn't attract the right females. ;-) I would guess that commenters like s.b., nicole and penny would agree, but I would not presume to speak for them.

As for your comment, I think it is reasonable to expect that certain government programs may in fact outlive their usefulness as time goes on, and therefore it is reasonable to examine their efficacy with respect to intended goals and results.

No argument from me on this one. I'm sure there are plenty of 'deadwood' programmes that could use a good scrubbing.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm sure there are plenty of 'deadwood' programmes that could use a good scrubbing.

Let's start with the CBC.

Cherniak_WTF said...

I have the feeling that no matter what kind of dialogue on tries to establish here, the civility is only on the surface.
The SOW is not the acronym.
Now, it's the CBC - I wish that women like Joanne would stop using talking points and start thinking for themselves.
There is no debate here.

SUZANNE said...

Because that concept makes no sense and is antithetical to a representive government. If government programmes are put in place by elected representatives, why should funding be put in place to dissolve those very programmes? While everyone has a right (and maybe even an obligation) to express their opinion on an issue, they do not have a right to have their opinion funded by the government.

However, if a government does implement a program that is dedicated to the welfare of a certain group, e.g. women, then it should consult women as a whole, not just "feminists". Otherwise that would be paternalistic.

For example, should groups that oppose socialized medicine receive government funding so they can launch campaigns to have Health Canada dissolved?

If they're lobbying groups, or groups that fund legal challenges, No! Taxmoney shouldn't be used for lobbying. If their purpose is to facilitate access to healthcare, through whatever means, then sure.

I'm with Cherniak on this one. What difference does it make when it comes to this debate, unless its to be used as an "only women should be allowed to speak on it" device to squelch debate. But, for the record, I am male and a parent.

I wanted this blogburst to be heavily woman-drive because otherwise the feminist opponents would be saying that we're doing the bidding of patriarchal males.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I wish that women like Joanne would stop using talking points and start thinking for themselves.
There is no debate here


I was giving an example of another government funded institution that may have outlived it's purpose. What is offensive about using the acronym CBC?

However, if you feel you're wasting your time here, I am not holding you captive.

Hey! BTW, what does that mean - women like Joanne??? What exactly are you trying to say with that kind of generalization, oh Mr./Ms. Politically Correct?

counter-coulter said...

SUZANNE said...
If they're lobbying groups, or groups that fund legal challenges, No! Taxmoney shouldn't be used for lobbying.


I'm glad to see that you're against funding of lobbying groups, but the difference between an advocacy and a lobbying group is what again?

If their purpose is to facilitate access to healthcare, through whatever means, then sure.

You give the opposite example of the reality of REAL; that it doesn't want to promote the SWC, in fact, their purpose is to have the SWC defunded and disbanded:

In April this year, REAL Women of Canada sent a letter to Canada’s MP’s calling for the defunding and disbanding of Status of Women.

Besides, you ducked my original question: ..., how does the SWC impact your life? What are they forcing you to do that is such a problem?

Dianne said...

Cherniak_WTF said…

"I have seeked out my own moral code and accept SSM and the right to abortion"

This is where we differ. We follow different philosophies. You are a relativist. Relativism expresses the view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference. Everyone can decide for themself what is right and what is wrong. I am not a relativist. I believe in absolute truth. I do not believe that in moral issues one can decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Do you believe that someone can decide for themself that their moral code allows murdering whoever they want? I cannot accept that in moral issues we can decide for ourself whether we accept them or not.
Canada, was founded as a democracy, which had an absolute moral code. We have watched one law after another struck down over the past 45 years, because of relativism. We no longer live in a democracy we are moving towards a form of totalitarianism. Canada is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but we are moving towards a totalitarianism because only the interests of one part are being heard.
The right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of public interest, is really nothing but the interest of one part.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Women like Joanne:
Look, I've tried to actually debate you here. What I've seen is a lack of respect because some don't think like you.
It's not SOW (something you know), but you seem to get a childish chuckle out of it (like using a naughty word, I imagine).
I asked you for YOUR views, you answered are you male or female (with the strange twist that it did not matter).
REAL women is not supposed to be partisan, but any view they take will be straight out of the Con/NeoCon/right wing play book - see another pattern here?
I could almost write a point/counterpoint argument with myself and do a credible job with what you will say ahead of time.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, thanks for stopping by.

vicki said...

'rgm'(Aug 28 @3:57) referred to women as the victim again. Do you realise the number of men who are in serious financial traits, and lost their visiting rights to their chidren because of feminist men hating lawyers...programmed/promoted by SoW?
REAL women see men as equal, not the enemy.
And 'counter-coulter'( so you don't like Anne's politically incorrect rants?)said "majority of Canadians are fine with SCW (SoW)..."
The majority of Canadians have not had a clue about how money has been spent on the frivolous programs at SoW...but REAL Women is getting the message out...and that is why lib-left feminists are squirming.
RT had to ask why this concerns you joanne...he has no concept of tax paying citicens being unhappy about the waste of tax dollars?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Vicki - Well said! Long time, no hear! I hope you stop by more often. ;)

Dianne said...

Cherniak_WTF said:

"any view they take will be straight out of the Con/NeoCon/right wing play book - see another pattern here?"

We have to stop breaking down to emotional name calling. Trying to incite hate with the scary conservative or fundamentalist Christian picture shows again we do not have equality.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Diane, that is a very good point.

Mac said...

If name-calling was eliminated, some on the left would be struck mute.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mac, was it Anne Coulter who said when a liberal is losing an argument they yell bigot, or something to that effect?

Cherniak_WTF said...

We have to stop breaking down to emotional name calling.
Good advice indeed – and I’m quite sure lost upon you with the giddy glee in which some here insist on using the acronym SOW….

Odd how I have asked a few times for Joanne’s views, I would phantom that she is ashamed of her views because she refused to share them.

As for equality, I have proposed nothing but. The resistance comes from your ilk that want equality, so long as we think exactly as you do. No one has or even suggested that you cannot live by your moral code. What I have said is that I see nothing wrong with SSM or pro-choice – your wanted to impose your views upon me are objectionable.

Facile little arguments Joanne do not mask that, yes, many on the right are bigots. You focus on the “bigot” part, but not the reasoning behind it. Arguments with the right (and left) are often reduced to school yard name calling.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Do you believe that someone can decide for themself that their moral code allows murdering whoever they want?
Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others – source wiki –
I know I have reduce it to a simple sentence, but it sums up how I feel nicely. It is a similar starting point but we do differ on the interpretation.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Odd how I have asked a few times for Joanne’s views, I would phantom that she is ashamed of her views because she refused to share them.

Phantom? I never knew I was that scary!

Dianne said...

Cherniak_WTF said...
"The SOW is not the acronym." Yes SOW is not Status of Women's chooses acronym, but for these of us who are 40+, that is what we called it back in the beginning when the name was The National Action Committee of the Status of Women. Back then we did not have an acronym for it and REAL women had not been founded yet. The real women in society use to sit around and say NACSOW does not speak for me. They get all this money and they do not represent where the real woman is at. The majority were in the home in those days. We would talk about it as being a big tax grab, the big SOW, for Status of Women.


murdering whoever they want? Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others – source wiki –
I know I have reduce it to a simple sentence, but it sums up how I feel nicely. It is a similar starting point but we do differ on the interpretation.

Dianne said...

and to my next point:
Cherniak_WTF said...

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others – source wiki –

The problem with this though it that you do infringe on my property and person, because I am teaching my children a clear right and wrong based on Natural Law, the golden rule. When you teach your child that something is right and I teach it is wrong, the children are confused. There has to be clear rights and wrongs, otherwise we end up where Hitler led his people infringing on others rights.
Our children have to interact with each other so we will cause confusion in a few generations from now. Through history we have learned that some things are not good for society so we created taboos, or laws, to protect the society from clashing which will happen.

Cherniak_WTF said...

The point is that you are free to follow YOUR Natural Law, YOUR golden rule. It certainly is not mine, although I may follow some tenets of it.
If I read between the lines, are you trying to say that I have to follow your rules? That it’s your way, or no way at all? Are you advocating that we most follow the Natural Law?

Wanting to abolish abortion, SSM does infringe on my rights. It’s rather grasping to say that it hurts you. The marriage that you have taken is still valid and as valuable to you.

My children are not confused at all and are exposed to tolerance. Children as a whole don’t know what bigotry, xenophobia, racism, and close mindedness is – it’s parents who teach that. Any child, black, white, Asian, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu will happily play with each other – it’s the parents who have a problem with that.

I have no hesitation in stating your wanting to ban SSM infringes on the rights of individuals – how very Hitler-like of you.


Joanne: How about telling us some of your views?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Joanne: How about telling us some of your views?

Wow, this is the first time anyone has ever asked me for my views with such unrentless determination.

I certainly don't mind sharing them, or else I wouldn't have a blog. However, I don't see why I should be asked to be so candid when you won't even disclose whether you're a she or a he.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Ahh Joanne, being coy are we?
My gender should be of little consequence to your views. That is equality after all.
I've been forthright with how (and more importantly, why) of some of my views.

You have gone on to harp about the gender of those engaging you here. I could be a sleep deprived albino midget with a bad case of halitosis and it should not matter....

Joanne (True Blue) said...

You have gone on to harp about the gender of those engaging you here.

That's not true. I merely reflected as to how it was mostly men complaining about this post. I was wishing that a woman supporting Status of Women would weigh in.

Well, anyway, we know now that you are a parent. What specifically would you like to know about my views?

Cherniak_WTF said...

Do women have a right to abortion?
Is it okay to have SSM?
Is homosexuality okay?
Should we do more to separate church and state?
Should divorce be allowed?

(it was posted - look up).
Yes I'm a parent - but I don't see how that affects anything I have to say.
If you do need more information on me, look at Red Tory's profile - we share almost identical stats (Scorpio, age group, job, and sex)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

If you do need more information on me, look at Red Tory's profile - we share almost identical stats (Scorpio, age group, job, and sex)

Another Red Tory wannabee? That is almost too horrible to contemplate.

But leave it with me. I will get back to you. And Dianne Wood may not like all my answers. (Sorry, Dianne!)

Dianne said...

Cherniak said:
"I have no hesitation in stating your wanting to ban SSM infringes on the rights of individuals – how very Hitler-like of you"

Using the term marriage is what causes me a problem here. It is not a marriage, it is a civil union. Just as my firends who have the last name Gay, and a friend whose first name is Gay, get quite ticked off, as you do with SOW.

What about abortion? When do you believe life begins? I have been at the birth of a 5 month old that survived and it looked like a baby to me. I have had friends abort at 7 months. There has to be a line drawn on what is murder here.

I want my children to be able to grown up and not kill my grandchild and not get married and then have their husband decide he wants more than one wife and another husband on the side. Society does better with clear ideals. And while some cannot live up to the ideal, they have the right to be treated with respect and not taunted or gossipped about.

counter-coulter said...

vicki said...
And 'counter-coulter'( so you don't like Anne's politically incorrect rants?)said "majority of Canadians are fine with SCW (SoW)..."


You are correct that I do not care for Coulter's vile propaganda, thus my play on words.

The majority of Canadians have not had a clue about how money has been spent on the frivolous programs at SoW...but REAL Women is getting the message out...and that is why lib-left feminists are squirming.

As for the SWC, your argument is that "if only people knew what SWC was doing"? They've been around since the '70s and only now are Canadians realizing what they're doing??...come on now, you'll have to try harder than that.

Dianne said...

btw, it does not matter to me whether Cherniak is a male of a female. Who cares, we are all equal here. I do have more respect though for the person who is not afraid to use their name for then I feel we have true dialogue. I also believe that Joanne being the moderator does not and should not reveal her leanings on these issues. We are all trying to learn from each other anyway aren't we, that is the only reason I am willing to enter into debate, to try and learn. I refuse to accept any conservative label for I have been far on the otherside in the past. I consider myself right in the middle, or trying to be.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Joanne - if anything, I'm Jason Cherniak's evil twin....
It's only happenstance when it comes to Red

Dianne said...

Joanne said:"Dianne Wood may not like all my answers". As I said you are the moderator so I do not need to know all your views, but be assured I will not make a judgement on your views. We are where we are for now, but we learn from each other and change our views as we grown older. I am totally Roman Catholic in my views but that does not mean I cannot learn to understand where you are coming from. My neighbour is a Muslim and has 2 wifes here in town and our children are still playing together. There is confusion of course for I have told my children marriage is between one man and one woman, but when my children got into an argument about the whole thing, I told my neighbours child he had to obey and respect his parents. When that child is an adult he then has to figure it out for himself but I like the old Canada better for those areas were clearer.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Well at least you are entertaining dianne.

You talk of respect yet use SOW whenever you can.
Subtle...

No one is forcing the Catholic church to marry people of the same sex. Basically what you are saying is that you want to impose your morality on everyone else....

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I hate this comment moderation. Sometimes things get missed; others get double-posted. If you think I missed anything, please let me know. I wouldn't have done it on purpose unless you used some kind of vulgarity. Thanks.

Cherniak_WTF said...

joanne, you are doing fine. And I understand your moderation to avoid vulgar language.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Jason's Evil Twin! ;)

Now let's look at your first question:

Do women have a right to abortion?

Yes, in Canada they certainly do today. Unfortunately, their unborn children don't have much of a voice in the issue.

Now if you are asking me should they have a right to abortion, I would have to say that my opinion is in an ideal world, there would be no abortion. But I know that is not possible. So I would like to see a cut-off time somewhere soon after the first trimester.

Cherniak_WTF said...

A moderate response -
I'm not against having a cut-off date either, for the record...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm not against having a cut-off date either, for the record...

That's good to hear. So how is it that the activists have us so scared we can't even mention the concept of a gestation limit?

BTW, I will reply to #2 shortly.

Dianne said...

Well Cherniak_WTF, I say we have to agree to disagree. We believe in different moral codes. We have many different moral codes now in Canada. Because we have so many moral codes now, Status of Women Canada has to be dismantled or totally revamped if we are going to have equalilty. But is equality possible now? How can a country survive that has more than one set of values?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

2.Is it okay to have SSM?
Is homosexuality okay?


I'll cover these together. Whether homosexuality is "O.K." or not is up to the individual and their religion/conscience/worldview.

Here is where I have a vested interest: It is the use of the word "marriage". That bothers me. I would be fine with a different word, and all financial & legal rights.

I would also be O.K. if the government used a different word to apply to everyone. Perhaps we can all have civil unions. Then we could go to our respective churches for the religious ceremony.

Cherniak_WTF said...

joanne - I agree with what you are saying with regards to homosexuality and marriage - see it ain't that hard was it?

Cherniak_WTF said...

That's good to hear. So how is it that the activists have us so scared we can't even mention the concept of a gestation limit?
I have not clue about that one to be honest. The only guess I can have is that it's a reaction to the rabid zealots of the pro-life crowd...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Counter-coulter: If you're looking for a reply from Vicki, she has posted it in a more recent entry
Still Going

This thread will be in the archives after the next few posts.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I agree with what you are saying with regards to homosexuality and marriage - see it ain't that hard was it?

So our views are closer than we originally thought.

I have not clue about that one to be honest. The only guess I can have is that it's a reaction to the rabid zealots of the pro-life crowd...

How about the fact that any attempt to initiate a time frame on abortion is met with raucous cries from the pro-choice side about Human Rights violations?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Should we do more to separate church and state?

Not sure what you're asking here, but to parody Pierre Trudeau, I would say that bedrooms have no business in the state of the nation.

Which is to say, live your lives, but don't expect me to accept your world-view. Don't start teaching your doctrines in schools. Don't try to force your own particular ideology down my throat to the extent that I can't talk openly about my differing viewpoint, and don't force me to perform acts that violate my personal code of conduct.

It works both ways.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Should divorce be allowed?

Yes, absolutely.

I also think though that more effort should be made to prepare young people for marriage. It's a lot more than love. It's money sense, communication and a lot of negotiation.

Many teens and even older folks just don't understand that, and they can sometimes make huge mistakes.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Which is to say, live your lives, but don't expect me to accept your world-view. Don't start teaching your doctrines in schools. Don't try to force your own particular ideology down my throat to the extent that I can't talk openly about my differing viewpoint, and don't force me to perform acts that violate my personal code of conduct.

It works both ways.

Exactly there.
But here is the rub - on another board, I wrote that Jesus freaks are trying to take over....
How do we stop that?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

But here is the rub - on another board, I wrote that Jesus freaks are trying to take over....
How do we stop that?


Care to give some examples of that, please? (From this century).

Dianne said...

Cherniak_WTF: If I am a Jesus Freak, as I noticed on another Blog, what does that make you, a non-Jesus Freak?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Cherniak_NJF.

I sense a name change coming...

Hailey said...

How did I miss this discussion!

I must say that I find it interesting that the men are almost universally supportive of the Status of Women.

I do have to say that although I am not in favour of funding under the umbrella of Status of Wome I absolutely want to be a part of a society that helps mothers who are having difficulty managing with the cost of child care and I absolutely want mothers to have the opportunity to leave abusive spouse. We should want to help with that.

I also don't blame any one gender for the horrible rate of divorce even though I do think people should take their marriage vows more seriously.

Lastly one of the most disturbing trends I've found is men like the one who was banned who speak with such vile towards women the whole "hunt" rhyming word. It makes me understand why the Status of Women so desperately fights for funding for women's shelters if this is what their pool of men is like.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Care to give some examples of that, please? (From this century).
Sure, the ID debate - (intelligent design)....

Cherniak_WTF said...

Cherniak_NJF. - I like it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Dear Cherniak_NJF - Sure, the ID debate - (intelligent design)....

Are you referring to evolutionism vs. creationism?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Are you referring to evolutionism vs. creationism?
Yes

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Seems to me both sides should be allowed to be presented in schools. What's your point?

Cherniak_WTF said...

Seems to me both sides should be allowed to be presented in schools. What's your point?
In what context?
I find one vile and disgusting. It's junk science and trying to mask it in a veener of "science" is just plain ignorance.

BTW, you had asked an example of "Jesus Freaks" trying to shove their beliefs where it does not belong...

Please note that if you want to believe that claptrap it's your right, but keep it away from my children.