Saturday, October 21, 2006

Five things Peter MacKay has done for feminism

1) Highlighted why the gnu-ly expunged "equality" mandate of Status of Women Canada should be restored.

2) Reminded us that when a woman is vilified on the basis of her sex, the attack will be construed in much of the press as being somehow her own fault.

3) Provided us with the sight of opportunistic moral grandstanding from the party which failed to provide something as basic as a daycare plan for women when it was in power.

4) Reminded us that, while attacks on women and feminism are primarily the stock in trade of bottomfeeders ,

5) conflating sexual slurs with feminism is not solely the perogative of the right.

33 comments:

Scott Tribe said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scott Tribe said...

Amusing take on the "5 things feminism has done for me" list meme, but I've included it in the big thread on SWC at Prog Blog.

Congratulations, you're officially the 100th blog/journal to post a list on this meme, and I've given you credit at our site for doing so.

Procrastinatrix said...

How come the word "slut" is being tossed around so freely for Belinda, however, no mention of MacKay's promiscuity and polygamous relationships? I don't get it.

Olaf said...

Why is ever attack on one woman an attack on women and feminism in general?

Belinda wasn't vilified on the basis of her sex, she was subject to a petty jab by a bitter and immature ex-boyfriend. Just as if a female MP called a male MP a "dick" doesn't mean she thinks all men are dicks, or that she is sexist against men, or that her entire party is sexist. She just thinks that man in particular is a dick.

And can you explain to me how the Canoe article could be construed as saying it was Belinda's fault she was called a dog? I thought it was relatively favourable to Belinda, saying how she'd rather just talk about the issues that she cares about, and it's Peter who seems like the immature one who can't seem to get over the relationship.

Dave said...

Good one Alison!

Havril said...

I'll say it, Procrast. Petey's a slut.

Grog said...

Sez Olaf:
Belinda wasn't vilified on the basis of her sex, she was subject to a petty jab by a bitter and immature ex-boyfriend.

Coming on the heels of government cuts and "remandating" of certain nameless departments in ways that most profoundly affect women and minorities, I can't imagine why MacKay's spewage is seen as an attack on feminism - could it be that it is? (Do I really need to point out that "REAL Women" - about as anti-feminist as you get - has been crowing over the SWC cuts?)

Also, look through the media, and you find all sorts of commentary about Belinda's past relationships, and nothing about MacKay. Which merely returns the loop to the reality that women are held to a moral double standard still.

Scout said...

nice take on the meme!!!!

heh heh, they say rugby players 'have leather balls'...in this case i'd say they were little gonads made of jelly fish. the boy-slut will probably take his insecurities deeper and axe some other woman's proggie in revenge. if only he could deal with his feelings, nothing more then feelings, trying to foget his ....feelings of love WHOA OH OH.....

olaf, i feel you have to take this in context with mackay's position of authroity and the history of the reformacons. look at the big picture.

Olaf said...

Coming on the heels of government cuts and "remandating" of certain nameless departments in ways that most profoundly affect women and minorities, I can't imagine why MacKay's spewage is seen as an attack on feminism - could it be that it is?

This doesn't prove any thing about the comment, it's pure conjecture that the comment was sexist.

And if Peter is the sexist chauvanist that everyone, including Belinda, is trying to make him out to be, how did she date him for so long without coming to this conclusion already?

Olaf said...

Scott,

boy-slut will probably take his insecurities deeper and axe some other woman's proggie in revenge

It's cool to call Peter a "boy-slut" but it's fundamentally sexist to call Belinda a dog? Go figure...

i feel you have to take this in context with mackay's position of authroity and the history of the reformacons

That's fine for you to feel that way, but it doesn't make it true. Peter isn't, and has never been, a "reformacon". So where's the connection?

Also Grog said Which merely returns the loop to the reality that women are held to a moral double standard still.

On this, I'd have to agree. But that's a societal thing, not a Conservative party thing.

Procrastinatrix said...

Thanks Havril.

Peter MacKay is a slut.

And calling women names that are sexually degrading IS an attack on women. It basically tells me that no matter how far women come, or how strong and effective they are, all you need to do is call them a slut and that undermines everything they've done as a contributing member of society and dismisses them as sexually subserviant. This isn't about crying victim, or even to assume that all women feel this way personally, however, this is the message that is sent to me when I hear things like this (and I am just as guilty-I've called Rona Ambrose a few choice words under my breath).

I would not go as far as saying its a Conservative thing, but its definitely something that happens to attractive women in politics. Why if a male politician is an idiot, he's just a plain idiot. But when an attractive female politician is an idiot, she gets called names like "dog", "whore", "slut".

Scout said...

olaf.......from my chair i can call anyone i want anything i want. does it make it right? that's up to your own values and morals. i'm not a 'minister' of anything. true? what is truth olaf, truth is only found in nature. apply that to the scenario now.

this is about mackay calling stronach a dog....not about stronache calling mackay anything. woof. mackay is not a true conservative or he wouldn't have married the two parties in the sell out way he did, therefore, supporting harper on most everything and being the one to bring the axe down, he sure ACTS reformcon, doesn't he?

there's nothing i can do for your insecurities. you have to address them yourself. this is not about you, it is about women and an unjustified verbal attack that comes shortly after the status on women council was axed...it's about putting 2+2 together. not hard to do.

if it had of been stronache making a verbal attack against mackay, giving him the evil eye while his seat was still across from hers, denying what she said, earlier having set up a p.r. shot to make take a jab at their failed relationship i for one would be giving stronache the gears......but it's not that way is it? and no programs that help predominatly male majority oriented programs have been axed, have they?

Olaf said...

Procrastinix

Peter MacKay is a slut.

And calling women names that are sexually degrading IS an attack on women...

I am just as guilty-I've called Rona Ambrose a few choice words under my breath


I appreciate your candor, but it doesn't bother you that you're a massive hypocrit. How is it that a) your attacks on Rona aren't attacking women; b) you can attack Peter in a sexually demeaning matter without being symptomatic of misandry, or a comprehensive attack on all men?; while c) an attack on Belinda constitutes an attack on all women?

Please advise, because usually inconsistency of this sort would disqualify an argument. Also, at what point did Peter call Belinda a slut?

Olaf said...

Scout,

from my chair i can call anyone i want anything i want. does it make it right? that's up to your own values and morals. i'm not a 'minister' of anything

God forbid you practice what you preach in order to develop some sort of credibility. Holding others to higher standards than you hold yourself, like griping because Peter makes a comment which may or may not have referred to Belinda's sexuality, while making a comment which definitely refered to Peter's sexuality, is just ridiculous.

What kind of standard is it? Is it some sort of parliamentary standard that doesn't apply outside of parliament? Is making sexually degrading comments acceptable in every day life, so long as it's not in parliament? I mean WTF?

there's nothing i can do for your insecurities. you have to address them yourself. this is not about you

I'm not sure where you came up with this, but I think that the insecurity is a factor when people see a non-gender exclusive insult (men are called dogs too, as in 'cheating dog') directed at one woman as somehow attacking the fundamental right of all women to equality.

it is about women and an unjustified verbal attack that comes shortly after the status on women council was axed...it's about putting 2+2 together. not hard to do.

This is just asinine. It's speculation and conjecture. It's like me saying: The liberal party did nothing about the environment for 13 years, Iggy just said that we can't reach our Kyoto obligations, and therefore all liberals hate the environment. It's obnoxious, and not quite as mathematically simplistic as you would have it be.

If you want to make the argument that the Conservative party isn't doing enough to benefit women or to promote women's issues, so be it, that's a valid argument, and a reasonable case can be made.

But to associate a jack-ass, non gender-exclusive insult by a bitter ex-boyfriend with a minor cut to SWC (20% of their over all budget), as if you had discovered proof of some sort of blatant assault on all women and their rights is just absurd.

no programs that help predominatly male majority oriented programs have been axed, have they?

Can you name such programs?


Alison,

Care to interject? Play the mediator role? Am I out to lunch here or what?

Alison said...

Thank ya very much, Scott.
Sorry I missed you all - just now in from work.

Olaf : Impossible to moderate a thread in which people are each reacting to four different links, two of which are to liberals.

I think your initial annoyance here stems from what you see as dishonesty on my part in linking a sympathetic article to the words "somehow her own fault". You're right - I pooched the link. The link I intended was to an editorial about how Stronach's current problems in the press stem from her own bad behavior.
Never mind -- let's just go with the information in the link that's already here. In a piece which I agree is quite sympathetic, the writer nonetheless manages to repeat:

~a dipstick, compared to a prostitute, and dubbed a whore
~allegedly refer to her as a dog
~hockey enforcer Tie Domi's divorce papers - where she was cited as The Other Woman.
~her love life, and its breathtaking propensity for wreaking political devastation.

Links 4 and 5 provide:
~dogs deserve better
~MacKay should apologize . . . to his dog
~a spoof letter from a group of dogs headlined: "We Demand An Apology.
~This is a slander on dogs the world over, as the former minister of complex files is notoriously fickle, attracted by shiny things, disloyal, shallow and generally only useful as a table decoration
~Belinda Stronach: Feminist or Slut?
~someone who appears intent upon becoming Canada's National Bike
~women who go through men like they're eating from a bunch of grapes as some kind of feminist role models
~Belinda's been giving it up for the resident goon
~the number of notches on her bed post
~the party's official bimbo
~Do Liberals really think they're scoring political points by standing up for female promiscuity?

All this overkill doesn't really seem to be about Pete and Belinda at all, does it?
Note that Stronach, the person being discussed here, was not even present for the insult that resulted in all the above.

If I referred - heaven forbid - to Bev Oda as a "gook", would you not immediately be able to see that it was her entire nationality that I was slagging and that I was only using her as an excuse to do so?
Likewise, is it not obvious to you that the issue here is not specifically Stronach at all, but rather women and/or feminists in general?

This is the most important point here, Olaf. It is also why everyone else here is so pissed off.

And by the way, the "minor cuts" you mention are already resulting in the closure of a womens shelter in Victoria. But it is the change in the mandate - the expunging of "equality" - that is the most damning point against the Cons, given this last escapade shows just how far we are from real equality.

Grog said...

Sez Olaf:
Also Grog said Which merely returns the loop to the reality that women are held to a moral double standard still.

On this, I'd have to agree. But that's a societal thing, not a Conservative party thing.


Sorry, but when the party in power enacts as government policy a series of cuts that disproportionately affect women, then it bloody well is a "party thing". Mackay's words merely reinforce the perception.

Scout said...

OLAF,
1. this is a blog, get it, a BLOG. you have no idea what i do for a living, if i'm married, have children , what i do in the community. when i am exersing my authority of 'power' i would not name call, deride or derail people especially based on past relationships, gender, race , political stripes etc.. and that's what it's all about, makay using his role as authority to broadcast his personal feelings. stronache is not my fave by any means, but at least she has the dignity , so far, to stick to issues. i highly doubt you , in person, never jive about anyone when it's 'sit around the coffee bar time'. i could give a rat's ass if mackay made the comment to his buddies while lamening over a beer....but it was done while acting as authority.

i see you are still not clear that mackay's remark was sexually degrading, or that the house of commons or even the small town chamber of commerce are not venues where this should be done.

credibility? i'm not striving for anything, take or leave my comments....obviously you can leave them but you're not. if it's credibility YOU are seeking i suggest you don't use words like 'truth' and admit this is a question of ethics. if you want to get into ethics, that's a different ballgame you don't seem willing to play.

2. addressing your insecurities comes about because you seem to be taking this personally......as in 'you are the one being attacked'. it's the issue olaf, the issue and big picture, remember??? and that very issue conatins the historical content of peter and belinda's history, and mackay's other comments, plus stronache having to move her seat in the house because of makay's glares. are you closer to 'getting it'?

3. you're right, it is speculation on my side. i should have clarified this. however, we know the cons are not 'woman friendly' in terms of axing SOW , but that's a different topic, so i'll eave that one alone from your POV.

4. when i refer to no cuts made to predominentley MALE MAJORITY ORIENTED programs i refer to ANY program that smacks of corporate welfare. the majority of corporations lead the pack in maintaining gender inequity in wages and positions. google it.

your empirical approach doesnt work with human behavior. that is an areas with too many foibles to muster any formula. i suggest you read some woman's history, current stats on women in society, then walk a mile in a pair of low-heel pumps.

can i ask how old you are?

Scout said...

OLAF, oh i get it now...i finally went to your blog and yes, you are young and a student and hurl off insults to politicians left right and center. also part of the jason bogreen crowd. ok, so you're angry young men going around trying to prove yourselves, but keep this in mind........education is fine to a point, then the idea is to 'unlearn', get it?

now alison may not like or agree with my opinion on this, but i advise you stick to your studies , work on upping those grades and try to impress your buddies at the frat bar instead of other people's blogs. you might learn a bit more about life there. get out and have some fun, son.

Olaf said...

YIKES! How could I possibly respond to all that? Ok... here goes, Alison first.

Alison,

First of all, I appreciate your friendly tone - I try not to sound rude or offensive when making comments, so I appreciate you doing the same.

All this overkill doesn't really seem to be about Pete and Belinda at all, does it?

Overkill is exactly the word for it. I think all the "dogs deserve better" comments are just obnoxious, and all the references to her past relationships as media sensationalizing the issue and 'going tabloid' to sell papers.

If I referred - heaven forbid - to Bev Oda as a "gook", would you not immediately be able to see that it was her entire nationality that I was slagging and that I was only using her as an excuse to do so?

Likewise, is it not obvious to you that the issue here is not specifically Stronach at all, but rather women and/or feminists in general?


I think that this is where we diverge. I don't see "dog" as necessarily referring to women, in the same way that "gook" refers to Koreans. I've heard men be called dogs before (eg. cheating dog), and I see it as for the most part a bi-gender insult, akin to "jerk", and thus not an attack on women in general. To me, it simply means 'base', which can, and is, easily applied to members of both genders.

Similarly, I wouldn't get upset if a woman or a man was called a "dipstick", because I've heard both genders called this before (in particular, my father to me, jokingly).

And by the way, the "minor cuts" you mention are already resulting in the closure of a womens shelter in Victoria.

This is the one job of the SWC that I completely support, and thus it is worrisome to me to hear this. I thought that SWC would have cut down their 'research and advocacy' arm before the initiatives which provide a tangible and necessary benefit.

As I said in my opposition to SWC on my blog, I completely understand and support the need for women's shelters, but I also see an equal need for homeless shelters in general, to which homeless men can have access.

I don't have any numbers, but about 90% of the homeless people I see in Calgary are men... is homelessness then less of an issue because it's mostly men? Of course not... but providing funding for women's shelters through a SWC program, necessarily excludes many men. Which is why I would support a program that provided mens, womens, and bi-gender shelters.

And finally But it is the change in the mandate - the expunging of "equality" - that is the most damning point against the Cons

This is one thing that makes NO SENSE to me at all. It's so horrible symbolically, while at the same time being immaterial, if you see what I mean. I don't think leaving the word equality in the mandate would have forced the government into funding women's programs that it didn't want to, so there is no harm in leaving it in. I can't defend their rationale behind that, in other words.

In conclusion, it all comes down to whether "dog" is a gender-specific insult, which I don't think it is. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, which is usually how these things end, unfortunately.

But at least I learned something.

Also, apparently, my interpretation was recently endorsed in the MSM, so I mean, I must be right... right? Kidding, of course.

Olaf said...

Now, Grog:

Sorry, but when the party in power enacts as government policy a series of cuts that disproportionately affect women, then it bloody well is a "party thing". Mackay's words merely reinforce the perception.

No need to apologise, firstly. Secondly, I agreed with the fact that when it comes to their love lifes, the media often pays more attention to women, especially attractive women. But I was talking about the media, not the Conservative party.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the cuts made by the conservatives were not disproportionately harmful to women. The one example was SWC. If you want to have a debate over whether or not to have SWC, feel free to read my take and respond (note, my views have changed a bit through discussions with progressive bloggers, but that post captures the jist).

However, in my opinion, there is no necessary connection between MacKay's immature comment and cuts to a government program well outside his jurisdiction. You can believe this all you want, if you think there is an anti-woman bent to the party, but there's nothing I could say to convince you otherwise so I won't try.

Deanna said...

Olaf,

Women's shelters are specifically for women who have been abused by men and need a safe place to go to leave them. They are not the same as homeless shelters, which are an entirely different ministry and budget.

In fact, most homeless shelters do cater to a male majority, and are often considered unsafe, or at least, insecure or inappropriate for women, especially women with children, because they don't have the facilities for them.

Comparing "women's shelters" which are primarily an mechanism to help battered women to flee abusive situations with "homeless shelters" which primarily shelter men who are homeless because they have mental health issues, drug abuse problems, lost their job, etc really is like comparing apples to oranges.

Also, interesting that you assume that SWC hasn't cut research and advocacy and still had to close shelters. Also interesting that you would think that improving women's futures isn't as important as sheltering them now. After all, if women are finally someday treated equally, and are no longer domestically abused in such high numbers or otherwise singled out for violent treatment, women's shelters won't be in as high demand anymore, would they?

Olaf said...

And, my personal favourite, Scout.

i could give a rat's ass if mackay made the comment to his buddies while lamening over a beer....but it was done while acting as authority.

That's fine, but you're missing the issue. I agreed that it was an innapropriate and disrespectful comment, but I don't think it was sexist. So we agree that MacKay shouldn't have said it, but disagree that it was a gender issue.

i see you are still not clear that mackay's remark was sexually degrading

You're right, I'm not.

if it's credibility YOU are seeking i suggest you don't use words like 'truth' and admit this is a question of ethics

I used truth in the negative form, saying that it's fine for you to believe that, but it doesn't make it true, which is correct.

I didn't say that my opinion was true, which would be impossible for me to prove in a matter of differing perceptions and interpretations, which was precisely my point. One can use the word truth in ethical arguments, as long as they're saying that an opinion is not necessarily true, as opposed to saying that their opinion is the truth.

I suppose that treating people with or without respect is a matter of ethics, I admit (but what aspect of human behaviour is not, if extended far enough?). In this case, I would call it mildly unethical to call Belinda a dog, in the same way it would be mildly unethical to call someone a jerk.

if you want to get into ethics, that's a different ballgame you don't seem willing to play.

I'm more than willing to play a game of "ethics"... how do you play? Seriously though, I love ethical debates, so name your tune.

addressing your insecurities comes about because you seem to be taking this personally......as in 'you are the one being attacked'

Again, your power to read minds and emotions through a cable are mesmerizing... it's quite a talent.

are you closer to 'getting it'?

Getting what? That MacKay hates women in general? Or that he hates Belinda? Cause I get the latter and dispute the former.

when i refer to no cuts made to predominentley MALE MAJORITY ORIENTED programs i refer to ANY program that smacks of corporate welfare

As if all money earned in wages from corporations goes exclusively to men... would you make the argument that government funding for post secondary institutions is female oriented, because women make up the majority of undergrads? At my school, it is about 65%-35%.

Is this somehow a subsidy to women, in the same way that tax cuts for corporations are subsidies for men, because more men work in corporations?

i suggest you read some woman's history, current stats on women in society, then walk a mile in a pair of low-heel pumps

Granted, I'm male. But that doesn't mean that I can't think that the term 'dog' can refer to both women and men, and thus isn't inherently sexist, which is the crux of the dispute. Therefore, I'm entitled to reject that somehow calling Belinda a dog was in fact an attack on half the population of Canada.

OLAF, oh i get it now...i finally went to your blog and yes, you are young and a student and hurl off insults to politicians left right and center. also part of the jason bogreen crowd. ok, so you're angry young men going around trying to prove yourselves, but keep this in mind........education is fine to a point, then the idea is to 'unlearn', get it?

So, while I know nothing about you, you're able to discern my temperment and inner motivations? I'd suggest that you don't assume so much in areas you could not possibly have knowledge.

but i advise you stick to your studies , work on upping those grades and try to impress your buddies at the frat bar instead of other people's blogs. you might learn a bit more about life there. get out and have some fun, son.

I appreciate your wisdom, kind sage. For the record, most people don't consider condescention a particularly appealing quality, especially when you know nothing of the person you're attempting to degrade. I have fun, I study, and I'm in the process of learning about life. All three, can you believe it?

In particular, I think I've learned a lot more from this thread than I would from having a conversation with my "frat buddies" jabbering about the Calgary Flames.

I perhaps am not as experienced in life as you, but I don't think that necessarily makes my opinion invalid. Further, I see ad hominem attacks as signs of desperation and confusion. That's my opinion, though.

Olaf said...

Deanna,

Comparing "women's shelters" which are primarily an mechanism to help battered women to flee abusive situations with "homeless shelters" which primarily shelter men who are homeless because they have mental health issues, drug abuse problems, lost their job, etc really is like comparing apples to oranges.

I can see your point here. Fair enough. I do believe, however, that they provide similar services (shelter, food, first aid, psychological treatment, advice, etc.) which could be provided by a single government program, which wouldn't necessarily polarize the genders, even if the shelters were seperate.

interesting that you assume that SWC hasn't cut research and advocacy and still had to close shelters

It is interesting. In my experience, the government works about as fast as molasses in winter. I'm skeptical that the SWC, with the cuts announced just a few weeks ago, has already trimmed it's budget in every way possible without restricting the important and tangible benefits of women's shelters, and has started to shut down these women's shelters as well. No protracted consultations on how to best cut the funding, but immediate cuts to shelter funding causing them to shut down. I'm just saying I'm skeptical, that's all.

interesting that you would think that improving women's futures isn't as important as sheltering them now

How, exactly, is SWC improving women's future's, beyond providing tangible benefits to women in need? Explain that to me, and then I can respond.

if women are finally someday treated equally, and are no longer domestically abused in such high numbers or otherwise singled out for violent treatment, women's shelters won't be in as high demand anymore, would they

I suppose not. I guess I am not convinced that the SWC promotes women's equality in any way. It seems almost like a matter of faith( "we're unequal, and therefore we need this program, even if we can't see it making us more equal, I'm sure it's necessary".

Like a man who's intent on beating his wife would read the SWC reports on how many men beat their wives, and immediately decide to no longer beat his wife. Sorry to be glib, but in all the posts and articles I've read, no one has once argued how SWC has improved women's equality. I'm not saying it hasn't, but it's that kind of argument that I think a lot of people would be sympathetic to, as opposed to the matter of faith argument that I hear far more often.

Personally, I don't see spousal abuse as an equality issue. In the same way that I don't see bar fights and child beating as reflecting some sort of fundamental societal inequality. It's not that women are considered unequal by the majority of the population, but rather that the men in the relationship are trying to make them unequal. It's a subtle distinction, but important.

It's not that society turns a blind eye to spousal abuse, and as such the abuser thinks beating his wife is ok and more abusers develop, which would indicate a fundamental inequality. To the contrary, wife beating is seen by many, as a particularly offensive and cowardly act of violence. Rather, it's that no matter how equal women are perceived by the majority, there will still be some men who need to feel dominant, or who are by nature violent, and will try to exercise that dominance.

I don't believe that SWC can do much to change their mind, for example.

Look, I'm not a sociology student, I don't know as much about these things as I should, and I'm trying to learn by having these type of conversations. But I haven't heard of a tangible benefit provided by SWC other than direct councilling and shelter for abused women.

Please, enlighten me if you can prove or at least make a reasonable argument that the SWC has tangibly improved the equality of women in the past 10 or 15 years.

Rick Barnes said...

I might suggest Peter should go back to Nova Scotia and see if it true, when everyone else is mad at you at least your dog still licks your face. I won't suggest as PETA might take me on.

Perhaps he can take up knitting.

Scout said...

OLAF, mwa ,i love you son,
and do you know why? i'll let you sit on that one. you are as cheeky as the bluejays who come to my feet each morning :)

perhaps times have changed. in my day 'dog' was a definite insult to women. 'ew what a dog' just wasn't used for a man. taking that into account and peter and belinda's ages (gawd i despise typing their names because you are correct in one thing and that it was a tabloid outcome to a country who's scandals pale to the british house, for instance, or the u.s.).

it was such a common insult to hear too. perhaps herein lies the difference....unless we can find some way of scanning youth vernacular i have to continue feeling calling her a dog was gender based. your example of 'lazy dog' is an old, old expression and contains 'lazy' which changes the context of the will known term 'dog' as an insult to women. if belinda were to hurl a name at peter i very well doubt she would use the word 'dog'......it wouldn't wash, doesn't go over, at least not someone of my era. the media would pick up on it, but would be hard pressed to call it sexist as it's just never been an insult term for men when it stands on it's own.

debate ethics? naw, you can do that in class or with someone esle, i don't feel like it. a minor cold is making me feel blech.

you may be surprised to learn what i am capable of picking up from a person via internet, in person, blah blah. it's all vibes, all energy. i can't help you there if you don't believe in that sort of thing :)

As if all money earned in wages from corporations goes exclusively to men... would you make the argument that government funding for post secondary institutions is female oriented, because women make up the majority of undergrads? At my school, it is about 65%-35%.

no my son, you took that out of context. i never said all money from corporations goes exclusively to men. the undergrad stats you list evens out to 50%, n'est pas? i'm glad to hear women are half the undergrads.

in corporations, women still earn 23% less then their male counterparts. and males are still predominantly at the top rung of the corporate ladder. from bank loans for small business to almost everything en route, it is still more dificult for women in the workplace, especially professional quarters. as the best indication of all, ask a female engineer.

I used truth in a negative form
whatever.

Granted, I'm male. But that doesn't mean that I can't think that the term 'dog' can refer to both women and men, and thus isn't inherently sexist, which is the crux of the dispute.
look up, look waaaaaay up.....i'll call rusty ( you are probaby too young to remember that phrase but it comes from an old canadian tv show called 'the friendly giant'. b&p would have watched it.).

that's good you're learning from this blog, it's too bad u of c does not have a place for you to hang with like minds and not just 'flames' throwers. i do not attempt condensaction by bringing up age difference, the voice of youth is very important, but it is equally important that elders guide. i always suspected you were young and discovering that you are, i now address you in different light, my son.

go out amongst the people and see how many older women and men consider the term 'dog' as sexist....if an older man denies it ask him if he ever called a fellow a dog , dog standing on it's own. do not bring up b&p when asking.

you are close to the tsu t'ina. find the ones who are traditional in mind, not post-conqueror. ask them about a woman's equal place. i'm not saying you don't feel women should have an equal place but some of your arguements are going against the tide for the sake of going against the tide. this makes it difficult for you to paddle.

you have brought many comments to alison's blog. this is good but could have been done in a few simple paragraphs where you openly said, 'all this talk about dog being a sexist remark, i don't get it,could someone explain?'

~*~ Grandmother Moon ~*~

We put our minds together and give thanks to our oldest Grandmother, the
Moon, who lights the nighttime sky. She is the leader of women all over
the world, and she governs the movement of the ocean tides. By her
changing face we measure time, and it is the Moon who watches over the
arrival of children here on Earth. With one mind, we send greetings and
thanks to our Grandmother, the Moon.

Now our minds are one.

_________
there is a medicine wheel for all to walk not too far from you on stony land. try walking it with a question. enter and keep walking, slow, until you come to the entry direction that feels right. sit there. let the answer come to you, don't fight your mind....the exersize is to turn off the external interferences that cloud us and not fight and go in circles with ourselves. notice which direction you face when you sit.

report back to me and we'll talk from there....otherewise i can't be bothered.

i love you my son.

Scott Tribe said...

Scout: Olaf is a political science student/graduate. Poli Sci people tend to be wordy and write long essays - sometimes thoughtful, sometimes rambling - because thats what they're used to.

I speak from experience as I'm also a Poli Sci honours student.. so for whatever else he writes, ease up on Olaf about that ;)

Besides, he's a lot more civil then some "conservatives" tend to be around here. He's proven to me he's not a troll.. just someone looking for a debate. he's ok in my books, even if I disagree with a fair bit of what he says.

Scout said...

thank you scott, i am aware he is a poli sci student and have known many poli sci graduates (including a sister and an m.l.a. brother in law). the easing up came through a heartfelt email i sent to him and his kind response. i praise him for his words but it is up to him if he wants to publish them here, that is not my kulianna.

however, he did need some toughness to begin with....in native culture when one rambles without clear thought it is considered open for ridcule. now we are at the gentler stage and have good dialogue and he has given a gift to himself, the gift of learning and acknowledgement. he deserved the gift, he is a good young man. this is from the heart of a mother.

jj said...

**applauds** Nice work, alison.

And scout, you leave olaf alone. He's justakeed. ;)

Jan said...

Good lord.
What part of this post don't you people get?
Alison provided four links of quotes that are direct responses to MacKay's original stupid quip. All the linked quotes pile on to attack both Stronach and through her -women in general.

Olaf definitely does deserve a shit-kicking for his dishonest tactics. Here's just one example. He picks one of those quotes :

~a dipstick, compared to a prostitute, and dubbed a whore

and then pretends that just because dipstick can apply to either sex and his father used to say it, that he can safely ignore the rest of it.

This is not "rambling"- it is a dishonest refusal to answer the point, and no amount of further obfuscations matters a damn after that.

Alison?

Scout said...

and yes you're right alison, the derogaTORY comments are coming from people , (mainly men from my findins) , of all party stripes. a bit sickening and disheartening.

snickertybiggetz said...

I don't know, I'm just a guy so please don't take anything I say too seriously, but it seems to me that this Olaf fellow has posted in a respectful and thoughtful way and his efforts have been met with patronizing and ageist slurs. I like this blog but it is a bit of a closed club isn't it?

Scout said...

snickerty, i think its a matter of perception. 'ageist'? if that's what you want to call it, but feeling that someone was young serves to take a different bent on things and feed youth more information to understand and learn.....it's a motherly love thing. i don't see anything negative about that , and i still am open to my elders teaching's.

snickertybiggetz said...

Mommie dearest!

Blog Archive