Monday, September 04, 2006

Time to Support S.O.C. - With Update

The recent and very successful blogburst calling for the elimination of Status of Women (SOW or SWC - depending which side of the fence you're on), has produced a torrent of controversy in its wake.

Several issues are involved. First of all, is the concept of women still needing protection from men a valid one? I suppose in some areas that is true. Some women continue to be poor, uneducated, abused, experience inequality in the workplace, have problems finding affordable daycare, and/or require government assistance in general.

However, should this continue to be done under the purview of Status of Women? Is it not accomplished already under other goverment agencies at various levels?

And many women actually feel quite resentful that this notion of women as the poor, oppressed minority is still being perpetuated.

Kate says "Being testosterone-challenged is not a disability."

Kathy Shaidle say "We need Status of Women Canada like a fish needs a bicycle".




Secondly, many women resent the fact that SOW-SWC advocates only from the feminist POV.

Straight from the *ahem* horse's mouth, we have this definition of their mandate:

Status of Women Canada (SWC) is the federal government agency which promotes gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country. 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.

O.K. This mandate should speak for all women, but it doesn't. The concerns of Moms who wish to child-care their own kids, like Sara, are not addressed. And what about stay-at-home Dads? Do they have an advocate?

(BTW, congrats to Sara on her debut guest spot at The Turner Report! Totally awesome!!!)


The concerns of women and men who would like to see limits on abortion are not only ignored, but vehemently challenged. Also, there is no government advocate for the rights of unborn females (and males).

In the area of same-sex 'equality', groups like Egale are double-dipping (source: Real Women):

...Another example is the homosexual lobby group, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), which receives funding from both the Status of Women and the Court Challenges Program...


How about some funding for those marriage commissioners and all others opposed to same-sex marriage, who are hauled up in front of a Human Right's tribunal because they refused to perform some kind of act or service due to religious objections or matters of conscience?

Personally, I think we have to start taking a long, hard look at the whole aspect of funding special interest groups. Can we really afford it in this day and age? Look at what the Vancouver Sun had to say about the precarious state of the North American economy - "Faltering U.S. economy could easily drag Canadians down too":



...While Canada's economy is not as dependent on consumer spending as is the U.S. economy, exports account for 45 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, with 86.9 per cent of those exports going to the U.S. If Americans buy less lumber, oil, natural gas, beef, wheat, pulp, paper, metals, minerals and cars, Canadians will share the pain.

The writing is on the wall and governments of all stripes should be preparing for slower growth. That means putting the fiscal house in order, curbing spending and leaving more money in taxpayers' pockets. High taxes and high interest rates exacerbate a recession, so the federal government must keep a lid on both.

All governments will have to prioritize program spending, hold public service salary increases to no more than the rate of inflation and forgo the frivolous demands of special interest groups....

Therefore, I am suggesting that we scrap all special interests groups and downsize to one central advocacy umbrella: SOC - Status of Canadians.


I've even got the slogan: Time to put a sock in it, eh?

* * * *

Update: Sara has sent me an interesting link from wa-a-a-a-a-y back in the CBC archives.

The Royal Commission on the Status of Women, called by Prime Minister Pearson in February 1967, held the notion of equal opportunity as its precept. Chaired by journalist Florence Bird, the panel was criticized both for exceeding traditional boundaries and also for hedging on the conservative. But the great undercurrent born of the Bird Commission was a renunciation against inequality.


In my dictionary, equality refers to being "of the same quality, value, status... another". I wonder which version Status of Women is using now?

108 comments:

Sara said...

Therefore, I am suggesting that we scrap all special interests groups and downsize to one central advocacy umbrella: SOC - Status of Canadians.


Best quote I have ever read, nice one JO!

jeff davidson said...

Therefore, I am suggesting that we scrap all special interests groups

REAL women as they liked to be called are a special interest group of the highest order and merely a mouthpiece for the biggest special interest group around, the conservative party of canada.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Sara, and fantastic post at Garth's! Logical, reasonable and well written.

Jeff, they're not in any way associated with the party, to the best of my knowledge. If I am incorrect, please supply proof. Thanks.

Dianne said...

Yes! Sock it too them Joanne!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Good one, Dianne!

liberal supporter said...

So the problem is the frivolous spending when a downturn looms?

I think SOW is about $22 million a year. Could you tally up the other "special interest" spending on your hit list?

Perhaps these cuts are needed to cover the 8 BILLION going to Boeing, for an untendered contract for military planes. Perhaps a competitive bitting process would have yielded a 1% cost saving ($80 million), which would cover well over 3 SOWs.

Soooo-eee yourselves!

It's a special interest group when it's something you disagree with, it's the "right" thing to do when it's getting fleeced by defense contractors.

Sara said...

No that is not true, I don't get funding and I thought of getting it but guess what I've turned it down because I cannot fight to stop funding by taking funding, so yah some of us have morals

wilson61 said...

REAL women, if I read it correctly, is not gov't funded, is privately funded.

''I think SOW is about $22 million a year. Could you tally up the other "special interest" spending on your hit list?''

That would be a great idea.
How many special interest groups are funded by the taxpayer to lobby the government for more money??

RGM said...

I think that we're a long way off from being able to declare SWC as irrelevant, that the objective of gender equality has been achieved. I've used SWC reports as source material for projects and I have to say that they highlight a number of key problems pertaining to genuine equality. It's important research that they do, and to have a dedicated agency that focuses solely on such things as violence against women, workplace equality, and the other valuable services they provide is an excellent resource for many women who may not have anywhere else they feel they can turn.

It's great that there are many women who have achieved a certain level within our society that they feel such agencies are no longer relevant. But just because some people feel a measure of security in society doesn't mean that all women do, or even a strong majority do. I commented at great length on my own blog on this subject last week, and I will reiterate a key line from it then: there is no equality while women feel unsafe. That can mean anything from physical, financial, emotional, or any kind of insecurity that is or can be caused by men. I think that it's far too early to declare that feminism has achieved its objectives and thus we can all do away with agencies that seek that very noble goal.
I know many women who feel that other, more priveliged, women have sold them out and are leaving them behind in order to make feminism, under the guise of "female empowerment," more appealing and less threatening to men. Barbara Kay's columns in the National Post occasionally do this, blaming many things on the shortcomings of feminism and making proclamations of a "matriarchy." When I talk to my feminist friends, they either laugh at such things or get incredibly angry at what is perceived to be such an absurd notion.
You may disagree with their views, but to try and disempower them based on your own belief that because you've reached equality all women have is a betrayal to those women and limits their ability to reach that same well-deserved plateau.

Sara said...

I am no where near equality in Status of Women that is my fight, I am equal at home but at work I am not, my last boss treated me like dirt because I was a strong woman. I know the problems I have tits too you know, but to discriminate against me for staying at home is not what Status of Women was created for. Yet, they only stand up for professional women in the paid workforce... where does that leave me? With tits and men yelling at me outside of the home..

liberal supporter said...

"How many special interest groups are funded by the taxpayer to lobby the government for more money??"

Somewhat of a red herring, don't you think? Every recipient of any government money wants more.

Name one government ministry that does not lobby for more money.

Name one group (special interest or not) funded by a government ministry that does not lobby for more money.

Name one group that is the subject of "tax expenditures" (i.e. businesses that receive deductions, organizations with charitable organization status) that does not lobby for more money.

Name one group that receives money from government (pensioners, unemployed, and now families with children under 7) who do not lobby for more money.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Perhaps we should be discussing the issue of accountability with reference to this funding.

Just saying X number of dollars is going to a particular group or organization does not tell me who exactly is getting the money and is it actually reaching the folks that supposedly need it?

My argument in this post is that we need to make sure that the money is spent wisely. We certainly can't ignore real need, but let's make sure we're not throwing money down the drain. And let's make sure we're not funding one segment of society at the expense of another.

Also, what groups are out there for men who are abused by women? It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen - more with emotional abuse than anything else.

What about men whose significant others decide to have an abortion and they want the child? Is there a group for them?

All I'm saying is let's be fair, and let's be efficient.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

"...there is no equality while women feel unsafe. That can mean anything from physical, financial, emotional, or any kind of insecurity that is or can be caused by men..."

So considering the fact that women are likely to feel unsafe to some degree for the rest of time, should we therefore continue to fund Status of Women forever? Or should we ask them to prove that they are achieving some kind of tangible goal?

RGM, I think it's great that you are advocating for disadvantaged women. But this agency is ignoring a certain segment of the female population, for example, stay at home Moms.

RGM said...

J(TB),
That's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes; that's not me being callous or flippant, but there is such a thing as organizational priorities. I'm more than willing to wager that on the hierarchy of problems to tackle, SWC finds violence against women and other forms of patriarchy to be on a higher plateau than those women who are in a position to make the choice between home-schooling and public schools. No organization has the capacity to tackle every challenge and problem that women face in society, because the problems are so multitudinous that to try and face down every problem would make the organization highly disorganized and unwieldy. If you've got an issue that an agency can't handle, and you know that there are other women with similar problems, why not band together and pool your resources into an agency of your own? That way there is another voice that is dedicated to raising attention to a growing problem.
A very well-known feminist blogger with whom I am acquainted home schools her three children, and yet her priorities within feminism deal with the same issues as SWC. That doesn't mean she doesn't care about the problems facing mothers who choose to home school, but her focus is on other priorities.
To remove a worthwhile agency because it doesn't cater to your specific needs or jive with your preferred agency hurts those who have their own perceptions as to the best means to alleviate a societal problem. As an example, I have very little use for the International Monetary Fund because it's an international organization that Canada will likely never receive funds from and contributes much more than it will ever receive in terms of tangible returns. However, I fully realize how helpful the IMF can be for those countries which rely upon it to raise them out of abject human misery because of their weak states. I may not benefit from it, but I know that many, many people do, and it's an instrument for the betterment of humanity, and thus I accept its ongoing existence based on its utility.

Mac said...

Every point of the SWC mandate is covered by some government agency or, in some cases, more than one agency. I raised this point while discussing this with a SWC supporter who felt SWC could provide a nationwide platform for dialogue between other groups but, as I pointed out, SWC doesn't do this. SWC has a very narrow focus which many argue doesn't represent the views of the majority of Canadians.

Why do we fund special interest groups? Let's look at this objectively. What do we gain by paying people to complain? Is it advantageous? If so, in what way?

Public funding theoretically relieves economic pressure so the group can focus on their objectives rather than being concerned about paying for their rent, salaries, etc. Anyone who has dealt with a government budget know that relief is only theoretical as government accountability mechanisms require budgetary reporting and requests which consume as much energy as fund raising.

Public funding empowers groups to do research which might not otherwise be done. Whether that research justifies the costs associated... well, I can't generalize to such a degree. I'm sure some is worthwhile but I'm equally sure some isn't.

Let's turn the question on it's head. What would we gain by NOT funding special interest groups? By advantages would the government gain by forcing special interests to be self-supporting... other than the obvious advantage of economy?

Special interests don't look at the big picture; that's what makes them special interests. If forced to be self-sufficient, special interests would have to broaden their appeal to attract supporters. Extreme positions would be harder to "sell" and, as a result, special interests would be forced to be more reasonable in order to succeed.

REAL Women calling for the abolition of SWC is a great example of what's wrong with funding special interest groups.

SWC is fully funded by the government. REAL Women accuse SWC of having a narrow focus which doesn’t represent the views of the majority of Canadians. Since SWC is publicly funded by Canadian taxpayers, they should reflect the views of the majority of Canadians and they should be accountable for their actions.

REAL Women is fully funded by private individuals. SWC accuses REAL Women of have a narrow focus which doesn’t represent the views of the majority of Canadians. Since REAL Women is privately funded, they don’t have to represent the views of the majority; they need only satisfy their stake holders which they evidently do because they continue to exist.

So why is this a great example of what is wrong? Look at how these two groups are handling themselves in this dispute.

REAL Women are championing their good works and they’re providing specific examples of the biased works of SWC to justify their call for it’s abolition. Since they’re privately funded, they don’t have to be this open but they choose to be open.

SWC and it’s supporters are attacking REAL Women but they haven’t been championing specific examples of the good works done by SWC to justify their continued existence, nor have they provided specific examples of biased works of REAL Women to support their opposition. Instead, they focus on ideological arguments. Since they’re publicly funded, they should be open and yet they choose not to be open about their works.

So whose tactics reflect the narrow viewpoint of a special interest?

Sara said...

Nice point Mac,,

LS,
I never said pull them down please go and re read my article, I gave a damn good reason of showing they are biased in some situations. Please don't tell me that you missed that. You know I have seen a woman beaten so bad by a man you can't recognize her from the blood and yes I would call her a victim and yes I thank SWC for what they did. SWC has always stood for daycare and nothing else, being at home for me is not a choice is bloody well should be a RIGHT, but apparently only daycare is a right in Canada and I for one won't let that be one sided...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mac, that was very logical and very well said.

Personally, I think the raison d’être for various special interest groups has been to score political brownie points for the government of the day.

However, there may yet be some valid points for these groups. We need to ferret out the ones that are double-dipping and redundant.

RGM, I wonder if Red Tory and Omar are reading this. I'll bet they're sitting back thinking, "OMG, I agree with RGM, but how can I admit that?"

I'm more than willing to wager that on the hierarchy of problems to tackle, SWC finds violence against women and other forms of patriarchy to be on a higher plateau than those women who are in a position to make the choice between home-schooling and public schools.

What the heck does that mean? Why are you pitting home schooling against violence as a priority? SWC also advocates for daycare. Why didn't you make that the comparison?


Sara, I'm just catching up with the comments to your post at Garth's blog. Lot's of attention, that's for sure!!!

Nicole said...

Jo, I actually agree with a LOT of what RGM is saying, and I'm not afraid to admit it!!! :-D

Joanne (True Blue) said...

That's cool, Nicole. What exactly do you agree with?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Nicole, I just read your comment on Garth's blog. Obviously you agree with Sara on the childcare issue.

I wonder where RGM stands on that one.

Nicole said...

I would like to see more benefits for parents that are using childcare other then government daycare. There are thousands of families that also deserve some benefits.
I do think 100 bucks isn't going to cut it, but will begrudgingly admit that for the first time , all families saw a type of funding, regardless of their childcare choice.
I have always worked in the home, and when my first was born, took off 3 weeks, which of course were unpaid. They are 14 and 12 now, so childcare for my family is now not a worry, and I am so thankful for that, {incase I ever had to change jobs}, I wouldn't be in a lurch.

I definitely see the value and all of the benfits of a stay at home parent. I also have come to the conclusion that people that think "staying at home" is selfish, are the same people that feel guilty for not and this is their way of justifying it.
I am hopeful that there will be a day when women and men support each other and realize that all each of us is trying to do is get through this amazing journey called life the best way we all can.
I think that parental care is the best choice for kids, obviously, who will love and nurture them the most { in most cases anyway, there will always be selfish parents, whether working or stay at home that do not put children's needs first} . I do know that sadly this is not an option for many, so there should be access to all childcare choices, and that does to ME mean, that "funding the child" enables the parents to choose the care they deem to be the best for their own family's needs and values. Everyone's situation is different and diverse, and childcare is not a "one size fits all".

I also think that the SWC has done amazing things for women, but will admit that thet do not have a voice for all women's issues.

Nicole said...

ps. nice to see comment mod is not being activated.

jdave IS in Spain, JSYK!!!

I also wish that you were able to see the side of RT that I see. I quite enjoy him and think if we ever met in "real" life, we could be birds of a feather.

But what would life be without the drama...hey? LOL

Red Tory said...

I have no problem with agreeing with RGM on this issue. His position seems very well-reasoned and absent of ideology.

The argument here in general however seems to be a little misdirected and, quite frankly, all over the place. It’s like you’re casting about for something to sink your hook into. I happen to agree with you Joanne that more accountability is required from SWC. Having skimmed their website, I found it to be quite sadly lacking in providing a transparent view of what the agency does, its objectives, accomplishments, etc.

As I’ve suggested before, I think your efforts would be better spent in taking them to task and reporting back on your findings. Perhaps Mr. Turner could be a useful ally in this effort. Or, you could file Access to Information requests to obtain the answers you’re looking for.

Before discussing your sweeping call (echoing the Vancouver Sun editorial opinion) to eliminate “special interest groups” I’d like you to define what is included under that umbrella. Is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) a “special interest group” for example? As someone who lives in Victoria, I’m certainly never going to see a penny from ACOA now will I? This is what strikes me as disagreeable about your argument that the SWC doesn’t represent certain segments of the female population (e.g., stay-at-home mothers).

Red Tory said...

Nic -- I don’t think Joanne believes I’m “completely” evil. Or should I say, “dark-sided” (go check out that viddy on my blog… it’ll crack you up). Goodness knows, every once in while we even manage to find some common ground. Lucky old JDave... off in Espagne visiting da family (and possibly reading “Freakonomics”). How long before he gets to an Internet café?

Joanne -- Nice to see the moderation OFF!

SUZANNE said...

Good post Joanne. Great stuff.

Mac said...

Blessed are the peacemakers, Nicole! :)

If we could stop spending so much taxpayer dollars on useless and/or redundant programs, we could have some meaningful tax relief. At what point did it become acceptable to work for more than half of the year before we have "tax freedom" day?

With our money in OUR pockets instead of government coffers, we have something called CHOICE! Yes, there are some who will buy popcorn and beer... but guess what? They were going to buy it anyway!

Rather than advocating for government to find new and more insidious programs, let's encourage them to get out of the business of minding our business. We're all adults (with the possible exception of Jeff) and we're able to take care of ourselves and we'd do even better if we got to keep more than half of our salaries. Is that too much to ask?

Red Tory said...

Mac -- Not to quibble with pesky facts, but the Federal tax as a percentage of income for those with median incomes ($23,000 - $65,000) is about 11%, for the highest income earners (over $65,000) it's 17%. The combined federal/provincial tax rate (Ontario) is 21% to 33% for median incomes and 35% to 46% over that. Should we assume from this that you earn over $118,285? If so, good for you!

RGM said...

J(TB), on the child-care issue, I don't really have much of a stance, to be honest. It's not an aspect of public policy I've spent much time analyzing and dissecting, largely for two reasons: 1. I study foreign policy and international relations, and that takes up a lot of my time (especially this past summer), 2. I don't have a stake in it, at least not right now. To me, it feels like the country collectively woke up one morning and demanded that it be a national priority.

I think that the Conservatives' introduction of the UCC Benefit is either a good starting point for something larger in the future, or an affirmation of conservative principles that it's not particularly the government's job to be raising children, and thus are giving a modest contribution to parents in order to enhance their own parenting abilities. I haven't spent tons of time reading about it or talking to people who benefit from it or just missed benefiting from it, so I don't have much of an "on-the-ground" sense of how Canadians feel about the Tory plan. Couple that with spending the majority of my waking moments dealing with a thesis on the nature of American foreign policy and where it's headed, and you've got all the makings of someone that is not unafraid to say, "I don't really know." :)

Re: your questions from 8:31pm, it means what it says. SWC has devoted considerable time to dealing with violence against women and helping women to overcome the structural barriers in place that lead many women to believe that they are still second-class citizens. As they say themselves, "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." That's why I said that they put a higher focus on issues such as violence against women than on the choice of home-schooling. Now, sure, you can make a pretty strong case that putting women in an economic position so that they can afford to do home-schooling or make real choices in child-care (at-home, baby-sitter, private institution, or government daycare) would fall under their mandate. I support that idea.
But you have to bear in mind a couple of things here, which tilt my perception in favour of dealing with systemic violence against women as the group's rightful highest priority: women are dying at the hands of men and gender-based violence, and they are suffering a lot of indignities just because they are women. Child-care, home schooling, both are very important issues, but they are not literal matters of life and death. Few things disgust and upset me more than reading, almost daily, about a group of men swarming and raping a woman, or an individual doing so, and then leaving her to live or die without any remorse or compassion. Why are they doing this? Because they see women as second-class, even less than human, not worthy of the same basic respect and dignity that these rapists treat their buddies.

Your earlier question, "So considering the fact that women are likely to feel unsafe to some degree for the rest of time, should we therefore continue to fund Status of Women forever?" raises a great point. Within that statement is an implicit acknowledgment that men will inevitably and forever treat women like shit. That bugs the hell out of me, for two reasons: 1. there's a good chance that it's true, and that men will always treat women poorly and thus cast negative reflections on those of us who would NEVER seek to cause women pain, and 2. women have come to accept that men will treat them like shit. One of the reasons that I support the work of SWC or ANY agency with a mandate to achieve true gender equality is that the fundamentally reject part 2 of that equation, and say, "No more of this." Women should not have to accept the concept that men will treat them like shit, and that a dedicated coalition of women is raising red flags everywhere about the growing propensity of men to do just that is an excellent resource for all women and should be funded indefinitely until both premises 1 and 2 of that statement are no longer operational.

Whew that was long.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mmm... Interesting comments, everyone!

First of all, thanks Nicole for the tip about JDave. Yes, I read that on your blog, and thus decided it was somewhat safe to remove CM for the time being. As Red suggests, the question is how long til he gets to an internet cafe, and decides to hurl some more vulgarity my way?

Anyone complaining about CM in the future should talk to Mr. Pottymouth directly. He is the only reason I was using CM lately.

"Nicole the peacemaker" - Cute!

Nicole, thanks for your explanation of how you view this subject. "Fund the Child" seems like a very reasonable approach indeed.

I also think that the SWC has done amazing things for women, but will admit that thet do not have a voice for all women's issues.

What are those amazing things? Just curious. Thanks.

As I’ve suggested before, I think your efforts would be better spent in taking them to task and reporting back on your findings. Perhaps Mr. Turner could be a useful ally in this effort. Or, you could file Access to Information requests to obtain the answers you’re looking for.

Red, do you think I could get some government funding for that project?

Before discussing your sweeping call (echoing the Vancouver Sun editorial opinion) to eliminate “special interest groups” I’d like you to define what is included under that umbrella.

It might be interesting to look at all the special interests groups that are funded by the taxpayer at various levels and compare the redundancies. I wonder how we could get such a listing.

Mac, your comments make too much sense as usual. ;)

Suzanne, thanks. This post was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I firmly believe we need to see more transparency and accountablility in government spending.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RGM - First off, congrats on your letter in Saturday's Post! You sure do get a lot of letters published.

I agree that violence against women is a greater priority than childcare, to the extent that safety is a more fundamental concern to a human being than education. My point was that SWC advocates for both VAW and daycare, so why use the argument that homeschooling is less important than fighting violence to try to justify their existence? It was like comparing apples to oranges, but whatever.

I think that women will always have to be concerned about safety with regards to some predatory males because (a) there will always be evil in this world, and (b) men are stronger and (c) men are physically capable of forcing sex on women, and not the reverse, due to anatomy.

The issue is not so much for women to stop seeing themselves as victims, but rather for women to learn how to defend themselves and learn certain safety skills so that they don't jeopardize their well-being and put themselves at risk.

Not all men are rapists. Some are though, and have violent natures. Some men are child rapists. We are talking about a very sick criminal element that needs to be under tight control and supervision; hopefully in prision.

On the other hand, I agree that women need to learn how to discern various types of abuse including emotional abuse, so that they are not victimized and emotionally destroyed in their own homes. They need the tools to learn how to deal with that. Can you demonstrate that SWC has helped women in this regard, and not just thrown money at the problem?



Whew! That was long too.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

BTW, excellent comment by "Charley" on Sara's post at Garth's blog (Sept. 5, 8:54 a.m.)

Red Tory said...

Red, do you think I could get some government funding for that project?

Maybe REAL Women will help you out with that.

Sara said...

red, did you even read my article or are you just jumping in blind for the fun of it

Red Tory said...

Sara -- Yes, I did read your post on Turner’s blog, if that’s what you’re referring to. I don’t have a lot of sympathy with your position. It seems you feel that women who stay at home to raise their kids are being unfairly discriminated against because the SWC does not include them as a priority within their mandate and that they have in the past (supposedly) supported taxation policy that doesn’t give equal treatment to stay-at-home moms as opposed to women in the workforce who must rely on daycare services for their young children. Sorry if I misinterpreted your position.

Joanne is happy to seize on this point of view because it’s another way to get her digs in at the SWC which she views as a “liberal entitlement program” as are others who feel that its mandate and objectives are no longer relevant and/or simply a waste of their tax dollars.

Speaking personally, we were fortunate enough that my wife was able to stay home and raise our four kids at home. She was out of the workforce for about 16 years or so. We didn’t concern ourselves with whether or not we were getting incentives from the government to do this or whine about disparities that may have existed in the tax code. It was an entirely personal decision and we made the sacrifices necessary as a result. Many women, some through choice, but many more through necessity, do not have this luxury. For this reason, I’m all for programs that seek to alleviate the burden on working mothers, whom I think in many respects, have a tougher row to hoe in terms of trying to balance the financial and emotional commitments of work and family.

RGM said...

J(TB), thanks for the nice words about the letter. I'm hoping at some point they'll send me an email saying send us one a week that's around 500-750 words and we'll send you a cheque in response. That'd be cool.

The purpose of SWC, as an interest group, is not to directly affect or alter male behaviour; rather, by shining a spotlight on what they see as a major societal problem, their goal is to influence government to take action to minimize VAW and do whatever is within their purview to reduce gender-based inequalities. Having read a handful of their reports, I can say that I've certainly become more aware of the extent of the problems that women face, and I do what I can to help raise that awareness amongst my fellow men, and women as well, because ultimately we all have a stake in it. The hope is that it's like a chain letter: as more people become aware of the problems, more will speak to their MPs or their peers to develop methods to reduce and hopefully eliminate such problems. That's one of the key goals of interest groups, to raise awareness and influence public policy. If the motivators for awareness are removed, fewer people know, much less understand, about some of the ongoing problems. I've learned quite a bit from SWC reports, and I think that a lot of others could from them as well, probably quite a few things that one couldn't get from other readily-available and reputable sources.

Sara said...

did you get that last one for RT I sent it, dammit I think I lost it!!!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, RGM, seeing has how you have actually read some of the reports. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I still don't see why we can't have one central advocacy group, but I'm sure there's a good reason.

Let me know if you get that email about a column. That's something I would love to do as well!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara, I'm not moderating comments so what you see is what you get.

counter-coulter said...

RGM said...
The purpose of SWC, as an interest group, is not to directly affect or alter male behaviour;


You've made some very well reasoned and cogent points, but the problem is that Joanne is building her argument on a faulty premise. The SWC is no more a "special interest" group than is Health Canada or Social Insurance. But has spoken in support of REAL, which is an actual special interest group.

She would have us believe that the SWC isn't being fair because their not taking up father's rights or trying to get abortion outlawed or the slipperyiest of slopes that all Canadians are disadvantaged and require help.

She keeps putting up this "many women don't like it" claim but never backs up those claims with any statistics.I've asked her and others here (Dianne and Suzanne) how the SWC has negatively impacted them. All I've gotten in return is avoidance to the question.

Red Tory said...

Sara -- Blogger has been flaky all morning. Didn't get your rebuttal.

Mac said...

RT, thank you for the correction. You're right- I overstated the case. I do note you ignoring PST and GST which, in BC, represent 13% on every purchase. It all adds up.

According to the Fraser Institute's "Tax Freedom Day" calculation for the average Canadian in 2006 was June 19th this year which is not half-way through the year.

Nicole said...

RT, yes there certainly does need to be something to help working moms. I totally agree.
But for families like mine, and Sara's and even yours { well not mine and yours now, the kids are old enough}, it sure would have been a big help to have had income splitting.
I also work with parents that could use a little help, but would still like to choose the childcare themselves. { meaning not use government daycare}
Remember, daycare trends are different all across the country. Here in Regina, because it is like a giant circle, you can get downtown in under 15 minutes every morning and that includes traffic.
Many families use childcare homes that are within their own areas, so that the kids go to the school in their area, have the same friends in their own area, etc.
Families { and not all, but I believe stats were 80% of working SK families use care other then a regulated "daycare"} like to drop the kids off at a daycare type home setting and then drive to work.
It sure would be nice for single mom's to have that option if that was their personal choice or preference, but usually to recieve the funding that they desperately need, they have limited choices and usually have to leave their own area for childcare.

It is a trickier situation then many understand.

But I do understand where you are coming from RT and I am glad that you do acknowledge that a family where one parent stays home, usually does make big sacrifices. :-D

Nicole said...

damn blogger...have been kicked off like 8 times. I didn't think my comment posted, but it did LOL

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I've asked her and others here (Dianne and Suzanne) how the SWC has negatively impacted them.

Look. Sometimes we have to stand up for those who can't speak for themselves. This obviously impacts unborn children, who don't have a way to advocate on their own behalf.

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
Look. Sometimes we have to stand up for those who can't speak for themselves. This obviously impacts unborn children, who don't have a way to advocate on their own behalf.


So now your back to the REAL argument that because SWC isn't trying to get abortion outlawed, therefore they don't represent the interests of women? You've even admitted yourself that abortions should be legal, but rare (a point most people would agree upon). Does that standard no longer apply? Should the SWC be forcing women to have children regardless of circumstance? And this still doesn't answer my question or are you claiming that the SWC is forcing women to have abortions?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I would like to see an end to late-term abortions, whatever advocacy group would like to take up the cause. That is my opinion.

No, I'm not saying that they are forcing women to have abortions, but I would like to see some counselling about all options.

Sara said...

dammit, no I know you weren't moderating it Jo the damn blogger has been down all day.


RT,

now lets see if I can remember what I said...


I don't believe the state should interfere with our childcare at all but that won't be stopped. No one will give up on daycare and they want it funded, I see some really good points on why. So instead of saying oh ok, take the money away from my kids so you can use daycare to make more money than I'll see in my lifetime. I say fund the child, help us all do childcare. For me I need income splitting and that would be a major help on keeping me home. But to take money from me to give to the rich is insane. Would that not be the opposite of RObyn Hood, take from the poor to give to the rich?

If this was only about low income families getting funded no one would say anything but it isn't. National childcare plan is universal just like the Conservative one. Universal means everyone no matter what income gets treated the same. So yah steal from my kids to support some rich kid in hockey why not, my kids didn't need winter boots anyways.

Red Tory said...

Sarah –- Oh, I am familiar with the sacrifices. Even though I made a fairly healthy income during that period time, things were still extremely tight. Good grief, I don’t think my wife and I went to a movie for 12 years! But, at the risk of sounding like a conservative, the decision to stay at home is ultimately a personal choice in most cases. In fact, these days it’s almost a kind of a luxury; one that’s not afforded to many who will either face a significant loss of income or a crippling blow to their long-term career aspirations.

It would be nice of the government to step in and help make the proposition of staying at home more attractive (as I believe they do in Québec with bonuses and so on), but the priority for the moment needs to be on alleviating some of the burden on working mothers. We only had to avail ourselves of day-care once (when we moved to Windsor) and my wife had a job lined up but there were still several months before our youngest entered school. I totally resented having to fork over $600/mo. for that.

If you really get thinking about the whole issue it becomes quite complicated. On the one hand we want the birthrate to increase, but is the government willing to encourage this through incentives and should it? And should it be subsidizing certain (for lack of a better expression) “lifestyle choices” that parents make? There’s a smattering of irony here insofar as so-called conservatives are complaining that an agency they believe is irrelevant is failing to provide a sufficient degree of advocacy on behalf of a group of individuals who are bucking the trend largely forced on them by the free market; that is, having to re-enter the workforce sooner than they actually want to because of economic necessity.

Sara said...

Should the SWC be forcing women to have children regardless of circumstance? And this still doesn't answer my question or are you claiming that the SWC is forcing women to have abortions?


THE SWC stood up for women's choice and allowed abortions but some women find it a murder so there should be no choice. So yah in both cases these women are not being represented by SWC, the cause should not matter to SWC the equality in all women should matter. WHo knows what they should of done I got no clue but SWC should not be standing on if we wear blue or white or daycare, stay at home, etc... they should be working on treating us equal as women and they are not and that is a fact.


Don't jump on me for using the abortion issue because you brought it up first I was just using an example... my issue with SWC is the childcare issue nothing else right now

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
..., but I would like to see some counselling about all options.


I believe that pre and post abortion counseling is currently available (but not mandatory). Or were you refering to scare tactic counseling or Anti-abortion Crisis Pregancy Centres?

Sara said...

RT,,,

you really should read my blog once in a while, I agree with you that we do what we do, but it should be the same for daycare parents.... we all suffer

but in the end as a womens issue for the SWC on a personal basis away from my children I suffer more. I have no resume, credit, money, benefits and pension all this because I am home giving 24/7 to my children. THat as a woman is not fair... Even you can agree with that...

I'll never have a job like a doctor lawyer or even make more than $30,000 a year and that is high end if I do make that... ask your wife she will tell you the same.


As for what I win in the sacrificing dept.. I get to be with my kids and the working parents do not, yes I win emotionally but not financially in the long run.
Putting a dollar figure on it I lose more.

counter-coulter said...

Sara said...
Don't jump on me for using the abortion issue because you brought it up first I was just using an example... my issue with SWC is the childcare issue nothing else right now


Actually Joanne brought it up, I was merely questioning her reasoning for bringing it up. I realize that your rationale is different and I'm not totally unsympathetic with it, but I think RT is already addressing this issue with you.

Red Tory said...

Sarah -- But to take money from me to give to the rich is insane.

Sarah -- Should I presume then that you have a problem with Harper’s “Daycare through the mailbox” scheme that actually benefits the wealthy and punitively taxes lower income Canadians? (They’ll find that out when they file their returns next spring...)

Sara said...

no a mom at home no matter what her husband makes still has no money of her own,,, you do understand that do you not. IF a man (or woman it doesn't matter) decides to close a bank account and keep their own money they can, the spouse only shares money if the spouse wishes to do so. No law forces a marriage to share money. SO a stay at home mom or dad is still broke.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Actually Joanne brought it up, I was merely questioning her reasoning for bringing it up. In the church of moral relativism, thou shalt not bring up the A-word.

Whatever. CC, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You won. Happy now?

Red Tory said...

Sarah –- WTF are you talking about? Most couples have joint accounts. One person alone cannot cancel that account. That is not to say that the working spouse cannot establish a new account and have his/her income transferred there. It is also not to say that the “non-working” spouse can’t set up an account and shift money over to his/her account. I would suggest that a relationship where people hide, shift, transfer, shield money, etc. in such a way, is one that is in serious trouble. Sorry, I’m totally missing your point here.

Red Tory said...

Sarah –- I have no resume, credit, money, benefits and pension all this because I am home giving 24/7 to my children. THat as a woman is not fair... Even you can agree with that...

Actually no, I can’t. Joanne won’t allow me to give you my completely unvarnished reaction to this, but the rough translation would be boo-frickin’-hoo. I contributed to the Employment Insurance program for 27 years and got benefits for ONE MONTH before feeling a tinge of guilt and decided instead to get off my backside and start my own business instead. I’m sorry you don’t have a resumé. Even my 16 yr. old daughter has one and she had never worked before assuming her present job (I helped her, um, “craft” it…) She had no previous work experience before aside from delivering papers and babysitting, but by gosh, we made her look like a fiery entrepreneur. You have no credit… Well, what’s up with that? Even dogs and cats can get credit cards these days. Personally, I refuse to use them on principle, but they’re darned easy to obtain. All too much so, I’d say. As for a pension, well good luck with that. I’m pretty sure I’ve got one tucked away someplace here with an unknown amount of money stashed away in mutual funds, but really couldn’t give a fig about it. I’ll die in my boots working, thank you very much.

Now, can I have a good chuckle at conservatives who deride so called “liberal entitlements” but apparently are just peeved that they’re not getting their share of cake?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara, I don't want to get involved between you & Red on this except to say on the resume point, just think outside the box. You have a lot of credentials! I know you have a part-time job, and you have organized so many events and done writing for various places such as Garth's, and you are able to speak in public.

You have a lot of talents and gifts. Right now the most important gifts are those three daughters of yours.

counter-coulter said...

Joanne (True Blue) said...
Whatever. CC, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You won. Happy now?


Kinda...but I don't think there's a need for sanctimony. All I would expect from you is what I would expect from anyone posting their opinion...and that is honest debate. If what you're putting forth is truly what you believe then fine, but be prepared to back up your assertions. Just ask RT about some of the debates we've had (believe it or not we do not always agree lockstep).

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Just ask RT about some of the debates we've had (believe it or not we do not always agree lockstep).

Really? I want references. ;)

I just have a feeling this is one of those arguments that could go on forever, and we would finally have to agree to disagree. However, I will take this up again another day. I just have a splitting headache tonight.

Also, I'm trying to figure out how to spend less time on my blog and more time making money. I've tried adsense, but wasn't overly impressed.

kelly said...

Counter culture: I checked out the web sites that you referred to (anti-abortion crisis centers)and they seem to be totally on the "pro-choice" side. I didn't see where they referenced any kind of documentation to back up their statements. Am I suppose to believe everything THEY say just because THEY say it? Maybe I missed the documentation - Could you tell me where to find this?

Sara said...

Sarah –- WTF are you talking about? Most couples have joint accounts. One person alone cannot cancel that account.


First of all NO H,, lol

No, a lot of parents have 2 bank accounts actually joint is not an in thing right now.

Jo,

thanks I know my resume is stacked right now, I'm speaking in general of stay at home parents.

RT
as for your 16 year old daughter she will have a good resume if you play with it of course and she has time to learn and lead in her industry I do not. I'm 34 by the time I'm working full time it will be about 40 and that leaves me 15 years to get a pension together. Yes I am doing it and yes no matter what happens I will do this but it is not fair to treat a paid working mother with more sympathy because she can't afford daycare for 4 years before school. I pay longer financially. So you can pity the parents who work all you want but try and look at the other side of the fence while your at it.

You are not being logical on this one RT, you are saying it is ok to help a parent who gets paid for a job but one that works from home can suffer like the rest of us and on top of that pay for someone else to make more money.

Also you stand up for SWC for womens rights yet you pull mine away from me. I can't get a credit card if I do not have an income. I do not have an income because the government does not recognize unpaid caregiving as a career. Now if I worked in a daycare I could have it all and my wage subsidized by the government just for being a woman. How do you really see that as making sense... screw the political view on this and tell me as a dad and a man why this is fair?

counter-coulter said...

kelly said...
...you referred to (anti-abortion crisis centers)...Maybe I missed the documentation - Could you tell me where to find this?


Not a problem: Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Some highlights:

A Crisis pregnancy center (CPC) is a non-profit organization established by pro-life supporters that works to encourage pregnant women not to have abortions and to help mothers in need by providing a number of supportive services.

Some crisis pregnancy centers have come under criticism for portraying themselves as "medical facilities" when they do not necessarily have professional licensing from local or state health departments. Without licenses, these centers cannot provide well-woman exams, prenatal care or medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, nor can they provide prescriptions or refills for contraceptives, and do not hand out free condoms. Critics claim that the only purpose of these centers is to discourage women from choosing abortion.

Red Tory said...

Sarah -- No, a lot of parents have 2 bank accounts actually joint is not an in thing right now.

I’d like to see some reference for that because it certainly defies my anecdotal experience.

as for your 16 year old daughter she will have a good resume if you play with it of course and she has time to learn and lead in her industry I do not.

Rubbish. “Learn and lead…” that’s a joke. She puts together sandwiches and ready-to-go meals at Superstore. She does it for the experience and the money it provides. Which isn’t too shabby actually. About $10/hr.

I'm 34 by the time I'm working full time it will be about 40 and that leaves me 15 years to get a pension together.

Seems you’ve bought into that whole “Freedom 55” myth. Good luck with that. My mother passed away a couple of years ago at the age of 82. She still worked two days a week. That was actually a break for her because prior to that she worked two jobs, seven days a week until she was 75.

Yes I am doing it and yes no matter what happens I will do this but it is not fair to treat a paid working mother with more sympathy because she can't afford daycare for 4 years before school.

As I said, the ability to stay home and look after your kids is to a certain degree a luxury these days. Unless you are independently wealthy, I must assume that you are being supported by your husband. Again, this is a choice you have made. I don’t dispute the validity of it, but it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too.

I pay longer financially.

This assumes that every working woman accrues benefits that are not available to you. Many do not have company pensions, medical benefits or ancillary insurance. Yes, their employment time does contribute to their government pension, but this is a fairly paltry amount of money. In the meantime, you have been able to invest your time and effort into the care and upbringing of your children, imparting to them valuable benefits that cannot be derived from third-party daycare.

So you can pity the parents who work all you want but try and look at the other side of the fence while your at it.

It is not a question of “pity” but more one of empathy having worked with many women in this kind of situation.

You are not being logical on this one RT, you are saying it is ok to help a parent who gets paid for a job but one that works from home can suffer like the rest of us and on top of that pay for someone else to make more money..

I must say that you have a rather dismal outlook on things. Are you really “suffering”? What I am saying is that given it’s a fact of life for many that they have to return to work in order to get by and make ends meet, that helping facilitate that for people in such a position is a good thing. People who can afford to stay at home and raise their kids are less in need of systemic assistance.

Also you stand up for SWC for womens rights yet you pull mine away from me.

Nobody is pulling your rights away from you. Wah! Wah! Wah! Me! Me! Me! It’s the old conservative mantra.

I can't get a credit card if I do not have an income. I do not have an income because the government does not recognize unpaid caregiving as a career.

Funny. My wife had no problem getting one when she was at home with the kids and didn’t have an income. Furthermore, your husband can always ask his bank to cut a card for you.

Now if I worked in a daycare I could have it all and my wage subsidized by the government just for being a woman.

Yes, it’s a fabulous wonderland when you’re working in the daycare field! You can have it all!

As a dad, a man and, dare I say a liberal, I am telling you this is fair because you have made a personal choice and personal choices come with trade-offs. You have made some sacrifices for a way of raising your children that you believe in and feel benefit them in significant ways. Others trade-off the advantages of raising their kids at home for other benefits such as a steady income, a degree of financial independence and so on. You want to have it both ways and moan and complain that it’s unfair when you can’t get everything.

Nicole said...

but the rough translation would be boo-frickin’-hoo


ok...when reading the above statement, who else thinks it is hilarious, if picturing RT dressed in a little santa dress, with a santa hat with a lovable little mutt at his feet staring at him with adoring eyes...LOL

Who LOVES ya RT????!!!
:-D

Nicole said...

ps...I do understand what Sara is going thru and what she means.
I too, shall face the same problems as I am 36 years old, and the education that I do have pertains to the business I run from the home, so if I ever decided to work out of the home, would want to do a different "job".
I could be in my 40's, and considered very uneducated, compared with the competition.
To stay home, I work a fulltime business from my home, along with a part-time "direct sales" evening one, and take an evening class each semester, but would not trade all the hard work, sacrifices, and what else my husband and I have gone without, because staying home and raising them was totally worth it!
I wouldn't be my whacky self if I hadn't have stayed home...I might have ended up....sane....LOL {gawd..imagine THAT!!!}
still love me RT????

PGP said...

Sorry...........I've been out all weekend and I see you've been busy tipping cows!
You have become flypaper to this little cadre.
Notice how none of the supporters has offered a new idea or substantial comment in favour of this "Progressives" pet cause??


Congrat's on that "SOC In It!" Idea....! :)

Where are the facts on the funding and expenditures of SOW/SWC??
Has anyone found anything substantive?

Red Tory said...

Nic –- Of course I love ya. How couldn’t anyone?

Santa, huh? Well that’s an interesting notion. I can guarantee you this will never, ever happen on my watch.

I’ll tell you the one thing that drove me up the wall about my wife staying home and that was, the minute I walked through the door she couldn’t wait to talk my head off for 5 hours or so. BECAUSE SHE NEEDED TO TALK TO AN ADULT! This was after me having worked for 12 hrs. and been on the phone almost constantly in a high-stress situation in addition to managing an office of 25 people. The absolute LAST thing in the world I wanted to do was listen to someone yammer on about “what the kids did today.” Zzzzz.

Nicole said...

BECAUSE SHE NEEDED TO TALK TO AN ADULT!

well NO SH*T!!!!
Thank god I have a blog...LOL
I have you and sara and zac and ben and john and even omar LOL

ps...the santa reference is Dr. Suess, the Grinch that Stole Christmas....get it now, in the cartoon, I think he actually even says...oh boo hoo hoo...just leaves out the friggen .

sara is like 5 ft tall and would make an excellent little Cindy lou hoo.

seriously, when I read your comment, I totally imagined you in the little santa outfit, typing boo friggen hoo.
I freaking LOVE it!!!!

Nicole said...

and how could anyone not love me....
I don't get it either???
I think sometimes it's my mouth...I talk without thinking sometimes. But when people really know how kindhearted and fun I am, most people come around. LOL

liberal supporter said...

MRS. BROWN:
[sigh] Makes you feel so, sort of, insignificant, doesn't it?
MAN:
Yeah. Yeah. [sniff] Can we have your liver, then?

Sara said...

RT,

what you are saying is not making sense. I can stay home only because my hubby can afford me to yet a mom going to work needs help. SHE IS OUT MAKING MONEY I AM NOT

I was home when hubby made $18,000 then $30,000 and so on... and it was not a choice for me. I tried working have worked even used daycare but guess what I would of had a nervous breakdown if I had of stayed at work. Oh by the way I would of also been a stock broker but not now.
I'm think I like your wife A LOT!

in the end the parents will do what is right for their children. You should be supporting both not one.

Sara said...

and your mother working at 82 is that because she had to or she wanted to. If she had to I'd say that shows some of your character but if she wanted to she seems to be an amazing woman.

Do you really think stay at home moms should get off their ass and get a job RT? DO YOU?

oh wait do you think all poor stay at home moms should get off their ass a get a job?

kelly said...

Again, CC, it seems that "someone" wrote this information without referencing any legitimate material. Anyone can write anything they want to on their site. Also, in one of the quotes you have listed it says,..."SOME crisis pregnancy centers......". IF I am to believe this statement, the rest of it goes on to infer that ALL of them are like this. Again, I refer to the one-sidedness (pro-choice)of this site.

I am not saying that everyone who wants to save a baby in utero is going about it the best way possible, but I belive that there are many who are. Seems to me that they are painting everyone with the same brush.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

PGP - Thanks. After mulling it over, I think the slogan should be shortened to, "Put a SOC in it!" Downsize the slogan. More efficient.

Sara - Do you really think stay at home moms should get off their ass and get a job RT? DO YOU?

Yes, indeed. Time for Red to say what he is really thinking. Shouldn't be too hard for him...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I belive that there are many who are. Seems to me that they are painting everyone with the same brush.

Thanks for weighing in here, Kelly. Yes, that would certainly look to be the intent here. Not very "politically correct" of them.

counter-coulter said...

kelly said...
Again, CC, it seems that "someone" wrote this information without referencing any legitimate material.


"legitimate" equals something you agree with?

So now its time for the sound of butterfly wings flapping. You don't want to accept the fact that these so-called "Pregnancy Centers" are nothing more than pro-life fronts funded by churches and the likes of Dobson and his "Focus on the Family" so you'll call reality in to question. I mean, "someone" has to write things for us to read, but who really knows who that "someone" is, right?

You can deny all the reality that you want, but I haven't seen anyone put forth anything that disputes those assertions. Now do you really think that women (and girls) that are going through the extremely emotional trials of their situation are truly getting objective information from these "Crisis Centers"? I noticed too how you skipped over the other article that I posted where these pro-life organizations have been putting out false information as as a scare tactic to try to dissuade women from abortion.

Sara said...

pro abortion have put out some bad information too Counter,,, people get desperate on both sides. I've seen a website where a woman tells young girls who are thinking of abortions that children are a burden and should be erased. Why waste your life on children she says... it goes both ways.
This argument will not be won, people have their beliefs both ways try and have an in between that you can both agree on.

RT,

you really are sounding more Conservative that me on this issue. Why not re think you're liberal stance and join the dark side!

Red Tory said...

Sara -- Do you really think stay at home moms should get off their ass and get a job RT? DO YOU?

I don’t know where you got that from as I never said that, nor did I even suggest that to be the case. I said staying at home was a personal choice and didn’t express an opinion one way or other as to the validity of it. I happen to think that staying with your kids when they’re young makes for a happier, healthier upbringing (provided it’s done properly), but it’s not for everyone and not everyone is able to do this for various reasons whether it be emotional, financial or whatever. That said, there are plenty of ways for stay-at-home mothers (or dads) to contribute to the workforce, if they choose to, given today’s technology. For example, my wife did data entry from home for a brokerage firm for about a year as well as a number other things such as knitting customized sweaters for high-end boutiques.

I do find your bleating about not being adequately subsidized by the government for your personal choice to be a bit tiresome, not to mention ironic, as is your moaning about not having a credit card or a sufficient degree of financial independence to be part of the self-pitying, boo-hoo mentality that many conservatives seem prone to display. As for being unable to return to work, there’s really no excuse for that. Most community colleges and vocational schools offer retraining programs or skill development programs if this is a problem in terms of re-entering the workforce with your current skillset.

Regarding my mother, she went back to work once my sister and I were both in school. She had strong secretarial skills in a traditional sense from having worked for the NHS in Britain. She got a series of jobs working for various real estate firms, then worked for the B.C. government for 14 years before being forced into retirement at age 65 (one year short of her pension). Then she worked for a credit union for several years while also working weekends at a funeral home. After she left the credit union, she got a pretty much full-time job at the Victoria Academy of Music as personal secretary to the executive director. She did that for many years while still working at the funeral home on weekends. My father died about 8 years ago without a will and all he left her was a pile of bills to sort out.

Sorry for rambling. Anyway, it was a combination of having to work (she liked to live quite well) and wanting to work because she liked to keep busy and otherwise she would have been bored out of her mind. She was an amazing lady who charmed everyone she met, young and old alike. Her death was a real shock and I miss her a lot.

Red Tory said...

Sara -- you really are sounding more Conservative that me on this issue. Why not re think you're liberal stance and join the dark side!

I’m no bleeding heart, that’s for sure. I have no problem taking issue with some of the opinions of my lib/Dem friends on various issues. As Counter-Coulter noted earlier, we don’t always march in lockstep on the left. As some have observed, getting liberals to agree on anything is like herding cats (or fish). But as for joining the dark side, I don’t think so. The Conservative message has little appeal for me and their views on a wide range of social issues are a complete anathema to my way of thinking.

counter-coulter said...

Sara said...
I've seen a website where a woman tells young girls who are thinking of abortions that children are a burden and should be erased. Why waste your life on children she says... it goes both ways.


This seems like a rather extreme position taken by some fringe group and I would highly doubt that this supposed site had any affiliation with a legitimate clinic. I would be curious to see a refrence to this material you speak of. On the other hand, there have been very large, well-known pro-life organizations that have used the false study I mentioned to further their position and have had limited success in getting their material in to clinics (in the States at least). There seems to be this huge (and perpetuated) misconception from the conservatives that women who choose abortion do so without thought or contemplation. Or that the clinics that perform these procedures somehow encourage the women to have it or treat the procedure with a certain level of banality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But all of this is moot since Joanne raised this spectre as her objection to SWC. Which has led me to believe what I had thought all along, that most all of those that oppose the SWC do so out of some sense of moral outrage rather than any sense of "fairness". The idea that this government organization is somehow obligated to provide funding for its own dissolution is ludicrous. I've mentioned here before that there are means available to citizens to have their will reflected in public policy, it just seems that there really aren't as many women (or people) as proclaimed here to have it come to fruition.

Red Tory said...

CC -- Funny how it all seems to come back to the issue of abortion, isn't it?

Nicole said...

She was an amazing lady who charmed everyone she met, young and old alike. Her death was a real shock and I miss her a lot.

RT
I love when you talk and remember and share about your mom. It is thru these conversations that one can see RT's heart grow up to 8 inches bigger, just like my favourite Grinch's.
I can tell you really loved your mom and to me, you must have inherited some of her charm.
I'm sorry you miss your mom, it is hard when people that we really love pass away. It is also amazing when sometimes just a smell, or a noise or a colour makes you think about that person.
Life is quite the character, ain't it???

Ok...you guys stop your bickering. agreed to disagree. I don't want comment mod back on, nor name calling to begin. My inner Pollyanna doesn't feel like coming out this week LOL

Red Tory said...

Nic –- Me? Heartless? Perish the thought.

I'm always happy in agreeing to disagree.

Nicole said...

Nic –- Me? Heartless? Perish the thought.

RT...you wily coyote!!!
don't put words in my mouth!!

I was pointing out, that when you do open up about your mom, is when I see your heart at it's biggest.
You already know, that I know you have a good heart....now the whole world can read it LOL

Just suck it up and accept it....under that gruff, barbed tongued, opinionated, sarcastic exterior, beats a sweetheart.

Sara said...

My father died about 8 years ago without a will and all he left her was a pile of bills to sort out.

Sorry for rambling. Anyway, it was a combination of having to work (she liked to live quite well) and wanting to work because she liked to keep busy and otherwise she would have been bored out of her mind. She was an amazing lady who charmed everyone she met, young and old alike. Her death was a real shock and I miss her a lot.

I'm sorry to hear and they sound amazing!



As far as you saying stay at home parents can contribute to society by....

we contribute to society by being with our children and many more things already.

I contribute to society just being at home with my kids, I do work.


Counter,

" that most all of those that oppose the SWC do so out of some sense of moral outrage rather than any sense of "fairness". The idea that this government organization is somehow obligated to provide funding for its own dissolution is ludicrous. I've mentioned here before that there are means available to citizens to have their will reflected in public policy, it just seems that there really aren't as many women (or people) as proclaimed here to have it come to fruition. "

was that aimed at me, cause if it is about childcare I'd say thems fighting words if not just let me know.


Nic,

I'm not bickering with RT just debating the issue he always adds a little flare like WTF, but hey I could call him a mofo but that would be silly and we're not on your site so we can't act up in here lol. Yah RT sickly enough does care we just have to slap him enough to show he cares!

Red Tory said...

Nicole -- Sssshhhhhh.... Don't let that information get out.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Just suck it up and accept it....under that gruff, barbed tongued, opinionated, sarcastic exterior, beats a sweetheart.

Ahhh... Group hug now!

Sara said...

sure but I'm eating 2 cans of beans before we squeeze each other

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. Sara. I'll grab the Glade!

counter-coulter said...

Sara said...
Counter,
" that most all of those that oppose the SWC do so out of some sense of moral outrage rather than any sense of "fairness"."

was that aimed at me, cause if it is about childcare I'd say thems fighting words if not just let me know.


No, that wasn't aimed at you, that's why I prefaced it with the word "most".

I have thought about your position on the SWC and childcare. At first I thought; if the SWC is willing to subsidize daycare for women in the workplace why not some sort of stipend for homecare children? I mean, daycare is very expensive (I have an 8 year-old that I continue to pay daycare for) and why not realize some savings by acknowledging parents that choose to stay at home? But then I thought; to be fair, shouldn't they pay fathers who stay at home? and how does paying a stay-at-home parent promote the SWC's stated goals? So...I'm kinda on the fence about this one. :-)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

nd why not realize some savings by acknowledging parents that choose to stay at home? But then I thought; to be fair, shouldn't they pay fathers who stay at home? and how does paying a stay-at-home parent promote the SWC's stated goals?

You mean the one about equality?

Sara said...

vBut then I thought; to be fair, shouldn't they pay fathers who stay at home? and how does paying a stay-at-home parent promote the SWC's stated goals? So...I'm kinda on the fence about this one. :-)


Yes a stay at home parent is either dad or mum either way they should be treated fairly.

The fact of SWC is they are standing up for women equality but pushing women aside to do so. I am at home working with my children, teaching, feeding, morals and yes even learning from them but as a woman I am thrown aside by SWC because I do not promote a professional woman. Yet they allow daycare workers to be paid and unionized. Does it really make sense?
I am sorry your daycare costs are too high and yes I would like to change that but I will not pay for your daycare workers with the shirts on my kids back. Do you understand what I mean.
That statement was not to be mean just for you to realize that I would not ask for the shirt of your childs back to give to mine.

Sara said...

yes, it is cheaper on the bills to have me at home, no not really.


I am home 24/7 we use more electricity, heat and food for our house.

I've given up a full salary to be at home, that salary will never be back until I am about 50. In that time you have more to save in pension (if you don't have one at work) medical, dental. What happens if I get sick or hurt, I do not have insurance to cover this and I do not have a dime to spare to buy insurance. No I do not have a second vehicle but I still take the bus my costs are still high. A stay at home parent in the long run suffers more financially even though it does not seem like it now. We have no long term resume, I cannot walk into work tomorrow and become a broker. I will never make $50,000 a year.
We also as a one income family pay 42% higher taxes than a double income family making the same amount of money. We do pay for being at home, but we do it anyways because we feel it is right for our family.

I do not write this for pity or guilt I write this to show why we are discriminated against and yet you ask us to support daycare and not stay at home parents...

counter-coulter said...

Sara said...
I am at home working with my children, teaching, feeding, morals and yes even learning from them...


So are all the mothers that are out there in the workforce.

...but as a woman I am thrown aside by SWC because I do not promote a professional woman. Yet they allow daycare workers to be paid and unionized.

You're complaint largely seems to be that the SWC isn't sending you a check. You have the luxury of being able to raise your own children full-time, while there are many women who don't and are required to work in order to feed, clothe and house their children. And in order for women to be able to remain in the workforce means they require someone to watch their children while they're at work. Since the burden of childcare usually falls on the mother, especially in the case of divorce, this creates a disadvantage for women in the workplace. Many times women are discrimintated against because of heavy use of sick time, maternity leave, etc. What would you have be the alternative? Having all mothers stay at home and be on the government dole? That would hardly be a situation where womens' rights would be getting advanced and somehow I don't think that idea would fly in conservative circles.

I will not pay for your daycare workers with the shirts on my kids back. Do you understand what I mean.

Not really. I can no more begrudge the daycare workers for receiving a paycheck than I can a teacher. But you do not get to decide individually where your tax dollars are spent and I hardly think your children are going shirtless because of it. The tax revenue alone generated from women being in the workforce makes your point moot.

Sara said...

So are all the mothers that are out there in the workforce.

I am at home 24/7 they are not,,,,
They raise their children and love their children as I do but they are not home doing full time childcare.

You're complaint largely seems to be that the SWC isn't sending you a check.

No not even close, my complaint is SWC and other dept's want to take money from our family to give to others who have more than us and want more than us.


Do I assume everyone should be a stay at home mom, of course not and stop trying to put words in my mouth it won't work.
I don't believe a woman should be forced into the paid workforce or staying at home. That is what equality really means.


I don't care if a daycare worker gets a check or not, what I care about is my children what is right for them.


Not really. I can no more begrudge the daycare workers for receiving a paycheck than I can a teacher.

and yet you begrudge a mother or dad for getting a pay check?

Is it the fact that you do not want woman in the home doing their own childcare or is it you do not think we are worthy of get subsidized to be at home. Are daycare workers more important than us in society?

These are not assumptions like you made these are simple questions for you.


Above all that do not assume I am a pampered housewife, I work hard my husband works hard and our family works hard. You have no idea what we do to keep me home so DO NOT assume.

I am no different than a single parent on welfare except from our bank accounts...

counter-coulter said...

Sara said...
I am at home 24/7 they are not,,,,
They raise their children and love their children as I do but they are not home doing full time childcare.


Right, they're not doing homecare because they have to work, hence the need for daycare. But you really didn't address my point about trying to promote equality for women in the workforce.

No not even close, my complaint is SWC and other dept's want to take money from our family to give to others who have more than us and want more than us.

This is an old, false argument from those that don't agree with a specific government agency/program and want to declare their tax money separate from everyone elses.

Do I assume everyone should be a stay at home mom, of course not and stop trying to put words in my mouth it won't work.
I don't believe a woman should be forced into the paid workforce or staying at home. That is what equality really means.


I didn't place words in your mouth (I wouldn't presume). I merely posed a question about what you thought the alternative should be. I don't really understand your second point here. Who's being forced to stay at home? I mentioned before about women that are required to work since they may be the only means of support for their child and the social implications of women in the workforce.

I don't care if a daycare worker gets a check or not, what I care about is my children what is right for them.

I'm glad to see that you feel the same way I do on this. :-)

and yet you begrudge a mother or dad for getting a pay check?

Where exactly did I state this? I stated that you have a luxury affored you that many other wommen, if they so chose, do not. I was responding to your specific statement:"Yet they allow daycare workers to be paid and unionized" Which seemed as if you had a problem with daycare workers being paid.

Is it the fact that you do not want woman in the home doing their own childcare or is it you do not think we are worthy of get subsidized to be at home. Are daycare workers more important than us in society? These are not assumptions like you made these are simple questions for you.

Talk about putting words in one's mouth. I made no such assumptions and where again did I state that I do not want women to perform childcare? In fact, I refered to it as a luxury (which I beleive it is) that you've been afforded, which is hardly a condemnation.

Above all that do not assume I am a pampered housewife, I work hard my husband works hard and our family works hard. You have no idea what we do to keep me home so DO NOT assume.
I am no different than a single parent on welfare except from our bank accounts...


Again, I made no such assumptions. I've never called your or anyone elses dedication in to question. But that last sentence doesn't really make much sense. Isn't that the very definition of the difference between one who's on welfare and one who is not, their bank account?

Sara said...

This is an old, false argument from those that don't agree with a specific government agency/program and want to declare their tax money separate from everyone elses.

not even close this is a fact of taking from the poor to give to the rich. My taxes go to support plenty of great causes and I give the shirt off my back to a lot but I will not to this unless it is done equal.

Women at home who can't afford daycare, that is what daycare advocates say. If they cannot have daycare then they are forced to childcare their own children. Yet the same could be said for mothers at work that want to childcare their own children. If they can't afford to stay at home and the state will not help them they are forced financially to go to work.



A luxury it is not, that seems to be your problem. It is not all glamour and bon bons. Maybe you should think twice about what a daycare worker does then double that for a parent at home.

Keep thinking about that last statement. It was not a question. WHen you figure it out then get back to me.

counter-coulter said...

Sara said...
not even close this is a fact of taking from the poor to give to the rich. My taxes go to support plenty of great causes and I give the shirt off my back to a lot but I will not to this unless it is done equal.


This is still just an avoidance of reality. BTW, who exactly is taking from the poor? You're taxed on your income and those tax dollars are distributed as seen fit by your duly elected representatives. But to sit there and say that you don't want your fraction of a cent not to go to a particular agency is pretty ridiculous. And are you really making the claim that if your fraction of a cent was getting spent somewhere else that you would be any "richer"?

Women at home who can't afford daycare, that is what daycare advocates say. If they cannot have daycare then they are forced to childcare their own children. Yet the same could be said for mothers at work that want to childcare their own children. If they can't afford to stay at home and the state will not help them they are forced financially to go to work.

You're only reinforcing the original alternative that I offered. That you would want a government program that would pay women to be stay-at-home mothers. Which would provide nothing to further womens' equality within the workforce and become basically another form of welfare.

A luxury it is not, that seems to be your problem. It is not all glamour and bon bons. Maybe you should think twice about what a daycare worker does then double that for a parent at home.
Keep thinking about that last statement. It was not a question. WHen you figure it out then get back to me.


There's no need to be patronizing and I find it rather ironic that you would be so quick to try to lesson the labour of others while declaring your own labour tantamount. I've never said that homecare wasn't hard work or some sort of holiday. I refered to it as a luxury, which I believe it is. Luxury does have more than one meaning you know: 3 b : an indulgence in something that provides pleasure, satisfaction, or ease

Sara said...

This is still just an avoidance of reality. BTW, who exactly is taking from the poor? You're taxed on your income and those tax dollars are distributed as seen fit by your duly elected representatives. But to sit there and say that you don't want your fraction of a cent not to go to a particular agency is pretty ridiculous. And are you really making the claim that if your fraction of a cent was getting spent somewhere else that you would be any "richer"?


What???

How do you decide that a working family making $80,000 a year that get tax money back and subsidized daycare should have that paid for by a single income family on $30,000 a year. That is soooo fair don't you think!!


You're only reinforcing the original alternative that I offered. That you would want a government program that would pay women to be stay-at-home mothers. Which would provide nothing to further womens' equality within the workforce and become basically another form of welfare.

are you dense or just want to keep fighting, I've said over and over again I want to "fund the child" that way a woman has a right to stay at home or go to work whichever she chooses, not the state. Now do try and keep up!

Do you not feel a mom going to work outside the home and boosting her career is a luxury.I know if I did it I would have felt so.
And no you did not specify that your accusations were of me being home because we can afford it, well then the truth be told if you pay daycare at full price you can obviously afford it. You have so far haven't you so therefore you don't need help.... that is what I see daily. If you pay you can afford unless you are a mom working outside of the home, even if she pays she still needs help but screw the rest of us.

counter-coulter said...

Sara said...
How do you decide that a working family making $80,000 a year that get tax money back and subsidized daycare should have that paid for by a single income family on $30,000 a year. That is soooo fair don't you think!!


So what would you advocate? Is it your position that any parent (male or female) should have the choice of working or to receive government money to be a stay-at-home parent? Let's say that you have a single parent (which tend to mainly be women), they should have a similar option? As far as income is concerned, you want to place income caps or have some sort of sliding scale based on ability to pay? Something like that doesn't seem an unreasonable thing, if the parent can afford it.

are you dense or just want to keep fighting, I've said over and over again I want to "fund the child" that way a woman has a right to stay at home or go to work whichever she chooses, not the state. Now do try and keep up!

Gee...I'm sure glad that Joanne was doing that moderation to keep out all the nasty, name-callers. "Fund the children", what an absolutely meaningless phrase. Those that do not want their policies scrutinized always seem to throw the word children in there to hide behind. Ciritcize not the policy lest you want to hurt "the children". So I guess all the money that's currently going towards daycare isn't "funding the children". I'm still curious as to your answers of my questions above.

Do you not feel a mom going to work outside the home and boosting her career is a luxury.I know if I did it I would have felt so.

I see nothing wrong with a woman wanting to advance her career. And if the SWC wants to fund that to help the status of women within the workplace then so much the better.

And no you did not specify that your accusations were of me being home because we can afford it, well then the truth be told if you pay daycare at full price you can obviously afford it. You have so far haven't you so therefore you don't need help.... that is what I see daily. If you pay you can afford unless you are a mom working outside of the home, even if she pays she still needs help but screw the rest of us.

Now who's making assumptions. I gave no details of my background or ability to afford daycare or not. I merely stated that it is very expensive.

Nicole said...

what needs to be pointed out, is Sara is not necessarily asking for a monthly check. There should be some benefits for all stay aome parents...like income tax splitting and maybe bigger tax credits per child at home. Nobody here is wanting to get rich over raising their kids.

What also needs to be addressed is that there are parents out there that want to choose their own care, like I pointed out earlier in this thread and nobody touched the comment, but daycare trends differ across the country. It is a plain and simple fact. Not all parents that are receiving subsidies get to indeed chosse where their family attends daycare. Parents should ALWAYS have the final say in it.
I personally know a woman that is a single mother, the father is a deadbeat dad and she does qualify for the subsidy here in SK, but doesn't even apply, because her choices were limited as to where she could send the kids. She wants them to attend the dayhome in her area where her kid's friends also attend, not an out of area home, which takes the kids out of their own community, but would make her daycare more affordable. Is this fair to this woman? I know that as a family they really go without alot of "extras" that the extra couple of hundred dollars she would save pesonally would help.

This is a more complex issue then most understand. It is not black and white and a I'm right and you are wrong scenario.

Nicole said...

also, yes there are community colleges, but when there is one income in the family, it makes it hard for women to take night classes to give herself something when the kids are school age.
I take a night class a semester and it usually costs me $ 400-500 a class. I could not afford it if I didn't work my ass off with my part-time direct sales job.
maybe something should be done about this...SWC should help SAHM's with funding for education upgrades.... would help women achieve equality in the workplace when the woman is ready to eneter it again.....just a thought

counter-coulter said...

Nicole: You've made some very interesting points.

Daycare Selection: I agree that families should have a choice of where they send their children. I believe there are licensing/insurance considerations, but I'm not sure.

Continued Education: To truly advance women's causes I feel that this would be an essential and should definitely be funded.

Sara said...

truly advance a women's career, what if that woman was at home with her kids, you decide she is not worthy of funding and the SWC too?

I see nothing wrong with a woman wanting to advance her career. And if the SWC wants to fund that to help the status of women within the workplace then so much the better.

And I see nothing wrong with a woman wanting to stay at home with her children but unfortunately the SWC does... that is my fight.

OK I am sorry for saying are you dense but to make it clear I didn't say you were, my statement is you are not reading my material. You're conclusions about me are way off base. Read my site sometimes and you might figure it out.

Sara said...

Jo, go check out the threat on my site!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara - Don't feed the bears.

Sara said...

I know dammit I have scars already