View topic - Discussion for Ladies ONLY on Status of Women Agency :: Free Dominion - Principled Conservative - Party and Canadian Politics

*Sorry, I don't mean to be "exclusive" but I was wondering from a female perspective what FDers think on this issue regaring women.

This thread would be the place for women to discuss their thoughts on whether or not the CPC should eliminate funding for the Status of Women Canada Agency.
Seems the CPC is looking at CWB...some have suggested defunding the CBC...what do you think about Status of Women?

Here are a few points to start our debate on the issue, and my reasons for believing this group should be GONE!

1)The exclusivity/discriminatory nature of the Status of Women
(they consistently decline to fund groups like "Real Women" which have conservative perspectives) http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06040702.html

2) the notable annual budget of SWC ($23 million)

3) the questionable nature of some of their projects, such as Women's History Month (even if you agree with the sentiment behind this issue, why isn't Heritage Canada handling this topic?) their funding of the homosexual agenda http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04061405.html
and their past funding of anti-Christian bigotry http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05090102.html

4) this agency tends to be comprised of feminists lobbying the government for funding for their issues, and as such are not representative of Canadian women

So...ladies, what do you think?
_________________

Sha'alu Shalom Yerushalyim (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem)

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 12:41 pm Post subject:

The feminist movement represents a certain percentage of women but does not speak for mainstream thought among women. I don't believe that this funding should be provided to REAL women either. I don't see this as about equality of funding - I see this as about NOT funding.

These women do not speak for me. They have disdain for my life and for me as a person. Why should I fund them?

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 12:43 pm Post subject:

The Status of Women if it is to survive should do so only by private donation. I find it offensive that I as a taxpayer must through my tax dollar support a group that think of me as inferior to their belief. If you have a cause that has support from the populous then you should have no problem obtaining continued financial support from those that are in agreement. The government has no business in the funding of this group. That's the way I see it.
_________________
FREE DOMINION FORUM RULES
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honor; duty; mercy; hope ~ Sir Winston Churchill
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 1:15 pm Post subject:

It should have been abolished before it even had a chance to form.It should have been gone yesterday.Harper should cut all government funding from this No Liberals

boondoggle agency and get rid of it NOW.It is better late than never.

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 1:19 pm Post subject:

If you want figures in dollars and cents please read this article. Mad

AT THE STATUS OF WOMEN, THE FUNDING TAP FLOWS UNCHECKED
_________________
FREE DOMINION FORUM RULES
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honor; duty; mercy; hope ~ Sir Winston Churchill
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 3:07 pm Post subject:

I have to agree with Styky, if this agency is to continue it needs to survive on private funds.

In my little world I do not know of one single women who supports this agency, and I have a very diversified group of associates and friends.

The Status of Women and their supporters most certainly do not speak for me; in fact, they speak against me and most everything that I stand for. I resent that my tax dollars are used to do this.
_________________
Did you pray for Roy today? Pray

http://tiny.cc/Gz84b
`There is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than to know Him and to speak to others of our friendship with him.” Pope Benedict XV

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 3:14 pm Post subject:

The very thought of femimnism boils my blood. They should not have ever recieved money for the gov't. If this group wants to continue they should have to come up with the money themselves. I highly doubt that they could come up with the kind of money the gov't gave them but let them try. We work hard for our money but our tax dollars are being wasted on this rubbish. It's nonsense. Mad

_________________
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 3:25 pm Post subject:

I am uncomfortable to a certain extent with the Government funding lobby groups at all. But I am more uncomfortable with the Status of Women and the National Action Committee. I don't like the direction they are wanting to take society and I don't agree with their definition of feminism and womanhood. And I don't think any radical social change should be done except by up-front voting for a political party.

Feminism as a social movement is often referred to as having come in waves, only the first of which makes any sense to me.

First Wave 19th & early 20th centuries. Focus was on Suffragette movement, with many crossover links with slavery abolitionist movment in USA. Women's Christian Temperance Union and other "conservative" movements were involved. Many first wave feminists were pro-life (e.g. Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony). "Equal Pay for Equal Work" goes back to first wave feminism. Feminists for Life look back to these women, and most social conservatives would be generally comfortable with them.

Second Wave Feminism (from the early 1960s to 1980s) seems to me to be overly influenced by Marxism, that is, it analyzes everything and every man-woman social interaction as being a politicized power struggle. I just don't think that analysis is accurate. Furthermore, I fundamentally and adamantly disagree with the premise that killing children through abortion is somehow "necessary" for women's freedom.

Third Wave feminism (late 1980s to present) is feminism on deconstructionist steroids. For them, "essentialism" is a dirty word. They don't believe there is such a thing as "human nature" or "womanhood" or "manhood." It's all a construction, 100% of it. There is no meaning except the one you personally assign to it: there are no universals. In this, I think they have become quite disconnected from reality.

SoW advertises that it is all about women's professional associations, rape crisis centres, shelters for battered women, etc. But it also funds a lot of things that most people would raise eyebrows at. REAL Women's website outlines some of them:
http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2003_sept_oct/article_7.html

I think feminism has gone beyond its original "fair's fair" mandate and is now trying to be some sort of concious collective effort at completely overhauling the social order via a philosophy that is at best female chauvenist and at worst outright anti-male. I don't think the government should be funding that. If people want to fundamentally overhaul the social order they will do that up front, say by voting NDP. I don't think it is fair to do it by back-door financing of Third Wave feminism.

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 3:33 pm Post subject:

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 4:23 pm Post subject:

You can go to my blog (bottom) to find out what I think!
_________________
One mind/voter at a time.
http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com

Opinions posted on Free Dominion are those of the individual posters and are not necessarily the opinion of Free Dominion or its operators. Free Dominion does not advocate violence, hate speech or an overthrow of the government.

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 9:19 pm Post subject:

BUMP!
_________________
Follow Me on Twitter

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 10:01 pm Post subject:

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 10:26 pm Post subject:

I'm sorry I wasn't here earlier to bump this discussion, but I agree wholeheartedly that funding should be cut for the Status of Women.

Congratulations on bringing this issue to the forefront! Hurray

_________________
There is nothing worse than a wormy, half-decomposed cheesebread.

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 10:47 pm Post subject:

This is the first time I've heard of this agency. The official Canada website for Status of Women doesn't really give a lot of information and most of their sublinks are empty, such as "resources" and "FAQ". I guess nobody has asked them anything.

Posted: 08/ 22/ 06 10:54 pm Post subject:

You have to look to the sidebar. They have a lot of publications available.
_________________
Follow Me on Twitter

	The time now is 02/ 09/ 10 10:59 am
	Home ∴ Forum ∴ Recent ∴ Register ∴ Profile ∴ Log in to check your private messages ∴ Log in FAQ ∴ Search ∴ Donate ∴ Activist's Toolbox ∴ FD Links ∴ FD Swag [ Login to join chat ] FD Arcade - Click Here-->