One would think that a broad-based coalition of more than 700 member groups, fighting for women's equality for nearly 30 years, would have a strong enough base to support itself financially instead of whinging to government for sustenance.
Member groups of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women can afford to make pins, posters and postcards to protest the government about their funding, but are apparently unable think up ways to finance their continued administration without government assistance.
The proceeds from their button sales will not go to help women and their fight for equality, but to fund continued protests against funding cuts. Clever use of resources, eh?
The biggest problem with Status of Women groups is that they believe they are the one true way with the divine right to determine women's interests, when in reality, they neither reflect nor represent the vast majority of women. Their vision of choice for women is never about real choice, but about quieting the voices of those who disagree with them.
I'm always suspicious of people who want to talk about 'women's issues' as though childcare and violence are the exclusive concern of women, and as though there is a Communal Women's Mind that advises us on all matters 'feminine'. And, it dismisses all the men who share our concerns, whatever they might be.
The NAC and its member groups claim to want equality, but their representatives hold themselves out as less than equal by being incapable of meeting challenges with creative ideas rather than silly slogans and protests.
If they are as 'needed' as they believe, then private and corporate funding is as accessible to them as to any other group in need of donations. Why do they find it so difficult to prove their worth and solicit and obtain funds from outside government?
When they can do that, then they deserve to be taken seriously.
canadianna
15 comments:
You are absolutely right.
Here, here. You should write them and let them know what you think.
I wrote them and I'm sure they were not pleased, because I cut into them like a knife. They do not speak for me and have never spoken for me. I am a woman and proud of it and do not need a bunch of feminists helping me.If I wasn't happy with my wages at one job, I would quit and get another. I was never overcome by the sin of greed. I just knew my worth, my morals and work ethics
Sorry, I ran out of room. I just wanted to add that at each job, I gave each employer more then eight hours of labour for eight hours of pay, coming in early and in most cases going home late. I very seldom had sick days, and therefore always had excellent references. That's all a woman needs. WORK ETHICS bring many rewards, satisfaction, and raises. Even at 62 years old I got a job, so know what I speak about.
Be very careful, Canadianna. You display integrity,wit and intelligence, in other words,according to Stripper Judy, you are a threat to women. If you don't live of the government trough, you can't be a REAL woman, or so BS says in her pink book.
Absolutely agreed. This is just another special interest group financing its own agenda, along with many others in this country that I would like to see cut from public funding.
I think women's rights are a serious issue and the government should continue to counter systematic discrimination. At the same time I don't support funding advocacy or lobby groups of any political persuasion be it left, right, or centre. I also think that while we should focus on the areas women struggle in, lets celebrate their successes. There have been many successful women which we should be proud of. We still have a long ways to go, but at least we are heading in the right direction. And unlike some, I don't think anyone government's decisions can delay progress that much since societyy is moving in that direction and government cannot control which direction society is moving in. It is rather a case of whether they will be a leader here or a follower and in the case of the Tories they seem to be followers while the Liberals seem to be leaders.
Give me a break. They had one female leadership candidate and no one took her seriously from the get-go.
If the Liberals are the leaders, women really do have something to worry about.
"It is rather a case of whether they will be a leader here or a follower and in the case of the Tories they seem to be followers while the Liberals seem to be leaders."
What? How do you get that? The PCs have had one female leader, currently I believe Ambassador in LA or somewhere in California. (While technically that doesn't mean the CPC, since you have previously linked the CPC to Mulroney, you have to give them Kim.) The NDP have had a female leader. When did the Liberals? Ever? Or the Bloc?
How is "reallocating" the funding by closing unnecessary offices "cutting" funding? Explain that, Miles, if you can.
In the day of the internet, who needs an office in every city? I moved from BC 6 years ago and still bank with my BC credit union because there has been NO good reason to switch. What I can't do over the net, I do over the phone. Duh.
Their fundraising tends to support themselves -- not their "causes," but their own pocketbooks. They, like the poverty pimps, have carved a comfortable niche and can't bear to lose it.
Women, like all others, would garner respect by accomplishing something extraordinary, by reaching out beyond what normal folks do, by becoming an inspiration for others without the crutch of anyone. And that includes government.
I respect women who respect themselves enough to make their status as women known with accomplishments and not complaining about funding cuts.
p.s. I think the writing at this site is great. And no Status Of Women funding either.
And Miles, I think these ladies have you licked. The Liberals have not had a female leader, nor will they for quite some time so quit barking up the wrong tree.
Anna, put your name in for a Senate position. I'd vote for you in a EEE Senate!! :-)
Dare I say it?
Oh well.
Merry Christmas, C!
Your editorial epitomizes why I'm a fiscal conservative on most things. Quite simply, bureaucracies quickly evolve (or devolve!) to serve one thing: themselves.
What do the following bureaucracies have in common: Status of Women, The Gun Registry, and Indian Affairs? In all 3 cases a bureaucracy was built that ended up doing little to nothing for the target audience it was setup to serve. Yet once in place, most traditional politicians won't dare touch it for fear of the backlash in the press.
Cut funding to SoW and you're supposedly oppressing women. Cut funding to the GR and you're supposedly not caring about victims of gun crimes. Cut funding to IA and supposedly you're a redneck racist and don't care about natives.
All 3 charges are, of course, complete bullshit but the press loves this stuff and develops a feeding frenzy around it. What annoys me is that they never question the validity of the charges themselves.
Merry Christmas (belated) and Happy New Year, C!
Post a Comment