Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:11 am    Post subject: Gender Demands of Conservatism Reply with quote

I know you folks are afraid of writing about the big enterprises in social engineering in Canada because ... you know ... you accept that intimidation is now a normal part of our lives. Particularly if the issue means taking issue with women. If might offend them, which is a crime. Oh, it isn't a crime in the explicit sense, but count on it -- lots of women will get their revenge, and if it takes a little lie to get it, so be it. And our criminal code and Human Rights Commissions will take care of it if any woman objects.

Personally, I wish Conservatives had some spine. Or at least cared about their children.

This is meant to chart where we are at. In the 1950ies and before, work was a no-sex area of life. This was accomplished chiefly by separating the sexes at work. In those days, the average family size was 3.5 children, and most women worked in the economy for only short periods of their lives. That doesn't mean they didn't work. They certainly did. These were the days before automatic washing machines and dryers, when floors were hardwood were waxed, and there was no stay-pressed. Ah, the hated job of ironing the clothes. All the clothes. The most diligent of women ironed bedsheets.

Now, because men cannot seem to say "No" to women in the political realm, much of that burden has disappeared. Nobody does housework like that anymore unless they have a cleaning service. And, of course, they've almost stopped having children. They have preferential job and educational quotas working for them, and the labour force has been thoroughly integrated. As we have all been told so many times, women can do anything a man can do.

All of those grievances have been satisfied for at least 30 years. But that doesn't stop the whining. Here, we here from Peggy Nash, a conspicuous success in a male world, who gives voice to the endless desire to prevail upon men for .... well, nothing in particular, but MORE. Women want MORE. And more and more and more forever more.

Why are our institutions failing women?: Nash
Wed., Nov. 8, 2017

The recent avalanche of harassment allegations has produced much discussion about men’s abusive behaviour. All people in positions of power do need to stop preying on others, if not out of genuine decency, then out of self-preservation.

However, the bigger question is: Why are society’s institutions failing women and others with less power? If these wealthy, powerful Hollywood women kept their secrets about harassment and rape all these years, imagine what low income women, those from racialized communities, people with disabilities, queer folks, and others without a big media microphone have experienced.

So yes, I’m talking to you, every organization in the country.

Some men think they can get away with sexually abusive behaviour toward women because in their experience, the organization and the culture allows them to do so. Colleagues, subordinates, clients, and sometimes friends and family, prefer not to know, or if they know, not to act. Power, including the power to reward or retaliate, underpins their behaviour.

So why do our institutions allow them to do this? Hollywood is far from unique. There are many examples in politics, business, academia, medicine, the clergy. Why do we not recognize that when people have a lot of power, they are sometimes tempted to abuse that power?

When powerful people make a lot of money for an organization, when they are very famous, or when they have a lot of political power or just clout within an organization, they tend to get a free pass. No organization in immune.

Some powerful men (and sometimes women) get away with sexual predation for decades until finally, someone speaks out. We live in a society that sexualizes women’s bodies, where women generally have lower incomes and less power, where women are under-represented in powerful leadership positions. Multiply that vulnerability for others with less power, and especially for children. Canadian residential schools, the Pickton murders, and generally the situation of Indigenous women and girls jump to mind.

What can institutions do?

I hesitate to remind male Conservative quislings that none of the 'perps' has been found guilty. Tiger Woods, Bill Cosby, Jian Ghomeshi ... all of these men, and men like them, are targets. First, they are successful and have money. Second, they have a public profile, so they are blackmail-able. The lead woman -- whose case failed, by the way -- travelled to meet up with him and went on parts of his tours with him. He didn't drug her, almost certainly. She probably asked: "Get me some quaaludes, sweetie?"

What used to be "rape" has been widely broadened, as another sop to women. Sexual harassment is -- literally -- anything of a sexual nature (in the broadest sense) that offends a woman. Unwanted attention is a form of sexual harassment. It was oppressive, but workable because men still had a line they knew they had better not cross. The line was defined by "No means No", that is that a man was required to stop his advances when told no, or he was guilty of harassment.

But behind the scenes, the courts have changed the standard to one of "affirmative consent". It means that every man is vulnerable to arrest for expressing a polite sexual interest in a woman.

Google the case of Gregory Allen Elliott, who was ruined by the expense of a trial for sexual harassment when he wasn't even in the company of the women who laid the charge. And police testimony was that none of his offending tweets had sexual content. It was an argument over a project that offended the women.

But look at this. Now we have men dressed up as women claiming to be harassed!

Following Sexual Harassment Allegation
By Rebecca Rubin @rebeccaarubin Rebecca Rubin
Rebecca Rubin
Staff Writer

UPDATED: Amazon Studios is conducting an investigation into a sexual harassment allegation levied against “Transparent” star Jeffrey Tambor, an Amazon spokesperson confirmed to Variety.

The accusations stem from a private Facebook post penned by Tambor’s former assistant, a transgender woman named Van Barnes, who implied that the actor engaged in inappropriate behaviour, Deadline reports. Tambor rejected the claims on Wednesday, calling the allegations “baseless.”

“I am aware that a former disgruntled assistant of mine has made a private post implying that I had acted in an improper manner toward her,” Tambor said in a statement obtained by Variety. “I adamantly and vehemently reject and deny any and all implication and allegation that I have ever engaged in any improper behaviour toward this person or any other person I have ever worked with. I am appalled and distressed by this baseless allegation.” [....]

Where does this end? As Nash's article illustrates, there is no end of female demands on men. They have so many advantages over men that claiming they only want 'equality' cannot be sustained. They have everything men have and more. They have job quotas, educational quotas -- even when they dominate universities -- as well as legal rights that are exclusive to them.

Adults don't realize what's going on on campuses. They don't realize that the Arts Faculties of universities have become social engineering endeavours. They encourage a sense of grievance amongst the most spoiled generation of women ever. Being a white male is a stigma on our campuses. I am not kidding. It has gotten to the point that men have to change the way they sit or else be accused of "manspreading". Anything that has the prefix "man" is stigmatizing, as in "mansplaining" -- which happens when a man explains ... that is no longer tolerable.

Gender issues are only the cutting edge of a set of social changes that they hope to implement through Human Rights Commissions -- because the courts go for truth, rather than ideological goals, although they are coming around. (Judges that produce rulings that offend the women's movement can be and are regularly cashiered. So much for the independence of the judiciary.)

I could go on. The point is not to beat on women, but to recognize that there comes a limit. Can Conservatives muster that kind of fortitude?
Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1282
Reputation: 122.7
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your view of history is ....selective and without merit. One would have to be living under a rock to think that " In the 1950ies and before, work was a no-sex area of life. This was accomplished chiefly by separating the sexes at work."

It was even worse when the women left the office/factory at the end of the day. But hey, you throw in such wonderful bon mots such as " washing machines and dryers, when floors were hardwood were waxed, and there was no stay-pressed. Ah, the hated job of ironing the clothes. All the clothes. The most diligent of women ironed bedsheets. "

So I figure you have got to be joking.

Phew....cuz anyone who actually thinks like this is a neandarthal and a pig headed misogynist .

But anyhow now that we have had our laughs at your joke.......I am curious about something.

Why would one, particularly one on the internet, meek such a feeble and ill advised attempt to amend the narrative using a false scenario ?

To whit, I will ask who is "Gregory Allen Elliott, who was ruined by the expense of a trial for sexual harassment "

Is he related in any way with the guy with the same name who was charged with Criminal Harassment ?

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why don't you talk about something you know about? Where are my mistakes? You don't have any real counter, only denials and trite insults. Can't you come up with something better than "neandarthal"? Maybe you should learn to spell.

If job ghettos weren't the dominant pattern, what was Betty Friedan talking about? (If you don't know who Betty Friedan is, it only testifies to my statement about your woeful ignorance.) Why do we expect a nurse to be a female? Has anyone heard of a telephone operator? Once every phone call was connected by an operator, not a dial, and operators were women. Ditto with office work, where women (almost exclusively) did all the typing. It was the rare man who typed in those days -- they had secretaries.

For anyone who wants to know more about the Gregory Allen Elliott case -- the guy who was charged with sexual harassment and was found not guilty -- here's a barebones account.


The legal question is: how could someone harass a woman sexually if they aren't in their presence, and every word is recorded and can be reproduced in court. (The police officer investigating testified that could find nothing even sexual in these tweets.)

It may strike TC as quaint -- he who presumes to tell us how the law works -- that a defendant ought to know when he is committing a crime. It ought to be 'on the books' so to speak. Instead, we have courts who are trying to set new frontiers in defending women ...

If you haven't got anything of substance to say, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your ignorance a secret.

For those who are interested in factual effects of Peggy Nash greediness, this video is start.

Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1282
Reputation: 122.7
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Why don't you talk about something you know about?
Ok, I am and will.
Where are my mistakes? You don't have any real counter, only denials and trite insults. Can't you come up with something better than "neandarthal"? Maybe you should learn to spell.

Ohhh, spelling mistake.

Your mistake is the whole damn premise you presented. You generally present misogynistic writings, demeaning woman ( I quoted a salient part) and a woeful lack of context and history of what it meant to be a woman alive in the 50's.

Rape, spousal abuse and a general lack of care for woman who were mistreated or abandoned were rife and is what lead (in part) to the rise of women power in the following decades.

Men ran the world. The laws, the societies,the jails, the everything were run by men. So if a man got into trouble, there was a good chance he could be excused. All the time? Nope, but many times more than today.

Your post was a such a minefield of claptrap I am surprised you posted it, but then again I thought perhaps it was a joke. There is too much to refute .

Sorry to find out now that it wasnt. Yikes.

If job ghettos weren't the dominant pattern, what was Betty Friedan talking about?

Well aware of who she is. If she were alive today she would smack that sanctimonious crap you post right off the page.
Why do we expect a nurse to be a female? Has anyone heard of a telephone operator? Once every phone call was connected by an operator, not a dial, and operators were women. Ditto with office work, where women (almost exclusively) did all the typing. It was the rare man who typed in those days -- they had secretaries.


I dont, although most RN's are female.
Nurse, operator,secretary,typist.....yea lets not bother with any due diligence as to why these were historically female occupations. Lets not bother looking into the pay scales for most of these jobs, lets not look at the lack of advancement available for a woman to be something higher than a secretary of telephone operator.

Cuz...ya know, you'd rather spew such dumb crap and hope no one calls you on it.

You are so incredibly transparent its funny.

Want to laugh...ok....

For anyone who wants to know more about the Gregory Allen Elliott case -- the guy who was charged with sexual harassment and was found not guilty -- here's a barebones account.


Im sorry, this is painful and you are too fucking stupid to see it. I apologize sincerely since it is now apparent you try to present a truth , yet the first six (6) words of your link proves you wrong/liar.

The first six. Wow!

And those first six words...?....." R v Elliott was a criminal harassment trial based in Toronto, [/quote]


The legal question is:

Legal Q for what? Certainly not what you are talking about. Good lord !.

You a funny guy. ...inadvertently but thats ok.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

#1. I didn't present a premise. If you think I did, please identify it. Where, equally, did I demean women? I don't see it. I wrote about sexual job ghettos. Is that "demeaning women"? There are women that are not worthy, and women who are. Some women are abortionists. Some are thieves. What kind of ideological idiot do you to be to "respect" a whole category of people, when they are, like men, all over the map?

#2. This is where you show your ignorance or your brainwashing. There was a lot less rape going on. Don't believe the propagandists. Believe the numbers. Most men were at least trying to be gentlemen, just as most women were trying to be ladies. If you were to engage with a women, you would have to pick her up at her house, and meet her parents. Parents cared. Nowadays, they're too busy. It's true that unescorted women were looked on askance, but they weren't raped. You are absolutely wrong about these baseless allegations. It's the kind of crap they circulate in women's shelters. It has no factual basis.

#3. Men may have run the world, but they didn't run it for men. Men were felt to have a duty to women, and honoured it. They did their job to get money to provide for their families. In those days, men stood up when women entered the room, and part of growing up was getting a fedora, the main purpose of which was to tip to the ladies, and otherwise express respect. All that is gone now. We had industry -- before Trudeau pere -- and men had jobs capable of supporting families, and did. But the work was often physical and hard. We were't a bourgeois country then.

And besides, the men we are talking about didn't run the world. More likely, they served some master to get the money for their kids. When you say things like "men ran the world" you just identify yourself as a ideologue.

#4. Women were paid less, but they weren't supporting families. That was the difference. In the non-organized part of the labour force, men often got a raise when they got married. Women;s work wasn't all drudgery. Nurses and teachers -- both professions allocated historically to women, and took years of specialized education. Nurses often did a work-study apprenticeship for three or four years. These were respected jobs, certainly. Not only that, but there were women who became lawyers and doctors as well, though very few. It wasn't a choice women made.

In 1973, I had an car accident in the US and had to get the insurance settlement at Allstate's main office, then on the 401 in the east end. It was a big building, and I went to the lobby to wait my appointment. The point is, I was taken into a cavernous room, with nothing but females processing paper, with the offices of the supervisors around the perimeter. Those were back in the key-punch days. That's what the workforce was like in the 70ies, imagine what it was like in the period I was talking about. Of course, not many married women held jobs. As I said, the average family then was 3.5 kids. How many kids do you have? I'll bet none.

#5. Getting charged on today's sex charges doesn't mean you've offended anything more than good taste. It's too bad you are so limited in knowledge about how bad the law actually is. Everyone faniiliar with the case knows that he was charged. People who are more sophisiticated in the law than you would realize that the crucial thing is being convicted which he wasn't.

But why was he charged? You duck that one, don't you? He was charged because he withdrew his offer to make a poster for a women's group when he realized that the poster was being used in the persecution of a vendetta.

# 6 This is something I appreciate an answer on if you have the parts.

How would anyone know, in this case, if they were committing a crime? He didn't know that conversing sanely with women on twitter could land him in jail. How could he? There was no precendent to these charges.

As I understand it, the individual subject is responsible for knowing what the law is, but in this case, it's unknowable. He wasn't even in the physical presence of the women. According the investigating cop, there was nothing sexual on his tweets. He didn't harm them women in any way, it was more that they were bent on revenge for his refusal to work for them. He was getting no fee.

Shouldn't the law protect men from contemporary women (who know they will never be held legally responsible for anything they do, short of murder).

In closing ... what is a "neandarthal'? Just curious about what I am being called.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Returning to the topic -- which is the view that Conservatives have an obligation to challenge feminism claims. In this case, I think the woman is a liar.

Conservatives seem to be intimidated on these topics, and prefer to abandon their role of protecting traditional relationships and private lives from overly-much big-government regulation.

Sexual harassment commonplace for women on Parliament Hill, MPs say
NOVEMBER 10, 2017

In her first year on Parliament Hill in 2011, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel began hearing the rumours.

A male MP was telling people that he had "tagged" her – meaning he was sleeping with her. He wasn't.

She heard it everywhere she went, so often that she started avoiding receptions – the networking events that are considered crucial for new MPs trying to make contacts.

"It was done as a way to demean me, and to own me and to put ownership over my career and my voice," Ms. Rempel said.

"It really affected me. I changed my behaviour because of that."

Like many women working in politics, she won't name names, only to say the MP is no longer on the Hill.

As allegations of sexual harassment and assault continue to pour out of Hollywood, places of power in Canada are now facing similar scrutiny. Parliament Hill, still a male-dominated workplace, where young staffers from across the country come to make their careers, has had its own high-profile incidents to contend with in recent years, from Liberal MPs kicked out of caucus to a former Conservative senator resigning in disgrace.

Other stories stay out of the headlines, whispered only in the ornate halls of Parliament. Stories about groping, touching and lewd comments. An MP who tells a colleague he wants to run his fingers through her hair. A female intern promised an opportunity if she has sex with her boss.

"Sexual harassment, certainly, is almost a daily occurrence," said Laurin Liu, a former NDP MP who was one of five McGill students elected to the Commons in 2011.

"Almost every single young woman who works on the Hill experiences it."

But the problem is not limited to politicians, or even Ottawa. Ms. Liu said in her former area riding on Montreal's north shore, the standard double-kiss greeting was often used as a sexual opportunity by male constituents. "Different men would lick my ear or put my ear in their mouth," she said.

Successive governments have taken steps to address the problem, including a new bill introduced by the Liberal government last week intended to strengthen protections for public servants and employees in federally regulated industries, including, for the first time, political staff members and interns.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, who recently confronted a reporter from far-right website The Rebel for labelling her "Climate Barbie," said the issue is prevalent and needs to be taken seriously.

"Harassment is a problem all over the place – Parliament Hill, but also workplaces across the country," she said.

"We know we need to be doing more, we need to counter harassment, sexism of all sorts."

Members of Parliament have their own process for reporting complaints, through their party whips, which are handled by the House of Commons chief human resources officer.

But many people are skeptical that such formal processes can counter the culture in the capital that deters victims from coming forward and bystanders from speaking up.

"I've heard from enough young women that in the past, that they had terrible experiences that drove them away from the Hill," said NDP status of women critic Sheila Malcolmson.

Julie Lalonde, an Ottawa-based social activist who has helped train NDP staffers and caucus members in how to deal with sexual harassment, said staffers are keenly aware that they are easily replaced.

"It is understood that if you are seen as a complainer, as someone who is making life difficult for people or rocking the boat, there are a hundred people standing behind you waiting to get your job," she said.

Staffers and interns also quickly learn that the best connections on the Hill are made after-hours, at events or in popular bars in the capital – settings that can be easily exploited, or where harassing behaviour can be excused as part of the political social scene. Female employees, said Ms. Lalonde, "don't want to painted as the women couldn't take the joke, who couldn't kick it with the guys on the Hill, and that's going to follow them for the rest of their career."

Constance Backhouse, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who first wrote a book about workplace sexual harassment in 1979, said she has seen a familiar and disheartening pattern over the years: Specific cases start a public conversation, a law is introduced or amended, but on the ground, in offices and work environments, the problem continues.

Now, with the allegations out of Hollywood and the swift censure of those alleged perpetrators, Dr. Backhouse says, yet another opportunity exists to sustain change. There needs to be "more voices speaking out, and lots of public focus on those voices, and a quick and fulsome response to backlash," she said.

For Ms. Rempel, the need to speak out is juxtaposed with the challenges it can create in one's career.

She doesn't want to get into a publicly fought "he said, she said" campaign. As her party's immigration critic, she has other issues she wants to focus on.

But she admits that Parliament Hill has changed her.

"I am not the same person, by any means, that I was when I came here," she said.

"I am hardened."

Think about this -- we are in the middle of a continent-wide gender pogrom that defines "masculinity" as "toxic", and the Trudeau government is now engaged in an effort to stamp it out.

In that context, this princess come forth to say that the whole male part of Parliament is acting like high-school kids. And nobody will stand up and challenge that.

The problem (in my eyes) is that we measure these men against perfection and find them wanting. Mere breeches of maaner, mere flirting can result in claims or abuse. The law does not draw a line defining where the offense starts, so it is left in the hands of the woman to make that definition! What a perfect tool for revenge! Or advancement!

What do the feminists want in this case? What is the behaviour that is complained about? Show us the evidence. We don't need yet another sudden appearance of a female lynch mob, a la Tiger Woods. (Think on that, he is attacked with a golf club, and injured to the point where he crashes his car as he escapes, and it is reported as a "woman wronged" story.)

Perhaps, after all this is an expression of toxic femininity?

You can't believe this bullshit. She won't name names, and frankly, I don't believe its common for male MPs are going around bragging amongst themselves about getting her into their bad. Sorry, I need some evidence for that.

She simply wants to make sure people understand the heavy burden that sexual attraction puts on women. Go fuck off! In fact, physical beauty brings huge advantages, maybe even overwhelming advantages, and when it is in the hands of and ambitious and venal woman, it can be a devastating source of interpersonal power.

But we are asked to pity the poor beauty ... a friggin' MP at that? We are being asked to believe that she's being discriminated against in some particularly soul-destroying way?

Stop the anti-male pogrom. Stop the toxic femininity! Speak out! Enough!

Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, gender demands on conservatism. Women make up 52 % of the electorate and are statistically more likely to vote. You are suggesting the CPC alienate a majority of voters. Do you believe the CPC will win a majority that way?
I realize you probably don't really hate women but you certainly give that impression.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queen mandy ... I don't know where I say anything that betrays any negative feelings towards women at all. Perhaps this point of view -- confronting feminist demands directly -- isn't common. Can you think of ever hearing even one male speak up for men in public in these media-led events?

These debates are not about men vrs women, although women have a natural tendency to support each other when they know nothing about the issue, and men's reflex is to 'defend' their woman and even women in general.

That's at the heart of these discussions -- social reflexes that have their place when women are under attack within kinship societies. We have survived as a species because men have been willing to die to protect their wives and children from predators, including huma predators. In feminist theory, that is dismissed as an example of male ego, but think on this -- we've only had a police force, in the modern sense, since the early 1800's. But those social reflexes have been developed over millenia. They may even be instinctual. Why is it a social good to attack those impulses? Why is the intervention of courts and cops a better solution?

What the media doesn't tell us, when they discuss the women's voting patterns, is that the voting gap between men and women is chiefly amongst single women and single men, particularly if the single women are mothers. In short, the voting patterns are largely the result of the welfare state offering benefits for marriage breakup.

Men and women raising children together have largely the same interests. It's only when women and men are set against each other than these issues emerge. How does it help a women to get a professional job if her husband loses his to female quotas?

Of course, in real life it doesn't happen as starkly. What happens is that the women's new jobs come out of the next generation. This generation of men make collective concessions that don't affect them so much as their sons. Women don't sacrifice their husbands to their ambitions -- they sacrifice their sons! All of them -- in my eyes -- are culpible, including myself.

Men of my generation were hardly directly affected by feminism. Only in the divorce courts, I would say. But with each succeeding generations, the legal situation men faced worsened, to the point now where any female can now essentially bring state power to bear in a devastating way on any male in the society. An adolescent girl can have her father taken out of the house in handcuffs on unsupported allegations alone! In this case we have a female lawyer, who is a CONSERVATIVE MP, slandering a whole group of men with unsupported allegations! Why won't she name a name? Maybe because this way, nobody will push back?

Worse, how about Rona Ambrose calling for (in effect) re-education camps for judges?

The effects on boys is devastating. The stats say that university enrollments are now 60% female and 40% male. It used to be the other way around. What they don't tell you is that white Canadian males are only about half of the 40%. The other half have been exempted from 'the treatment' by their skin, or their religion. Everybody else's opportunities are being taken away from white males born in Canada. There are quotas in all the professional schools like medicine and law. In addition, the content of these programs is offensive to young men. They are being told their fathers are racist homophobes who will turn the earth into a cinder if somebody doesn't do something. They are stripped of their basis of pride on the way, and become demoralized.

It's clear -- men and women have been set apart and against each other -- more honestly, women have been set against their men. (One has to wonder why the master institutions -- like our schools -- have picked up on inculcating these dubious propositions.) It has started a dynamic that is tremendously damaging to society as a whole.

I myself have both a daughter and a son, now in their late 30ies, and I don't see how either one of them have benefitted. Most jobs are boring and repetitive. It's an alternative that ought to be open to all, but it shouldn't be seen as anything more than a way of gaining a livelihood. Most men have been eaten up, and it has come to the point where they live to work, rather than work to live. It means they find their identity in their jobs, rather than using their income from work to create and add to their own lives.

The cost of single-parent families is huge. Kids who grow up in fatherless homes are way more likely to fail at school, to become involved with drugs, or premarital pregnancies, and just generally, are social disasters. Meanwhile, the zealots of feminism meet on university campuses to try and figure out a new way way that men supposedly oppress women. Some of them go further, and talk about a cull.

The Woman Who Thinks Reducing the Male Population by 90 Percent Will Solve Everything
It's not all bad; the remaining 10 percent will be used for breeding.

The Femitheist is a 22-year-old criminology student with a three-year-old. One angry day in 2012 she took to the Internet to outline the brutal concept of International Castration Day. After posting it on YouTube she stepped out for a coffee. Returning home a few hours later, she found that all gnashing male hell had broken loose.

Her argument was that only through the reduction of the male population to between 1 and 10 percent of their current number we can approach "true equality".

Trust me, one or two more generations of these trends will take us to complete barbarism.

That's my angle. I don't expect those who sit down to pee to all vote for the left, while those who stand vote for the right. Women are not just greedy, but if they don't see the costs, and who pays for their benefits, they go along willingly. It means that it is up to us to make people aware of what the consequences are for their own children, amongst other things.

I hope you respond, and tell me what gives you trouble in accepting these verifiable conditions of modern life in Canada.

Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I need some time to formulate a reply. I think we see things very differently.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thank you for opening your mind to this point of view.

I acknowledge that there is a lot of intimidation on this subject. You can be fired for not going along with the feminist line. You can be stigmatized. Being branded as "anti-woman" is a social death sentence.

Trust me on this. I grew up in Leave it to Beaver times. As far as the story goes, it was a terrible time for women, being squeezed out the jobs they had during the war, the conforming 50is, with McCarthyism, and all of that. Of course women were oppressed -- oppressed by the burdens of raising families of two, three, four and more children. And their husbands, too, were oppressed with the same burden, It was a time that was transitioning off of 10-hour work days and men often worked Saturday morning as well. The story they're telling the kids is that men were somehow exploiting women.

Those people were happier than they are today.

The progressive view assumes that all jobs are well paid, fulfilling experiences that give the individual an opportunity for growth. Here, I stifle a chuckle. Women want jobs like that. Do they want a career in pouring coffee? Not so much.

Where are the jobs?

There is always a shortage of women in the sewer department, or sliding into crawlspaces (where the spiders are) to fix the plumbing. They pay well. There never seems to be enough women to do their share.

It's not about equality and fairness. It's about cashing in.

Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a lengthy reply all ready and the @^%#^^ site logged me out.
It seems we are the same age. I learned that it is inappropriate for men to make judgements on what a woman wants or how they should live their lives.
As for the question posed in the OP, I do not believe your policy direction is a winning formula for the CPC. After all, the purpose of a political party is to win elections. They do that by appealing to the greatest number of voters and then keeping those voters by doing what the voters want. Not as easy as it sounds. Just ask any MP.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wish I'd seen your longer response. You feel worried perhaps, by the vague suspicion that I am a secret woman-hater intent upon my own jihad.

No, I am pretty much out of that game. No more walks-on-the-beach, trips to flea-markets, and so on. When I lived in Toronto, I did believe a lot more of the poop about poor downtrodden women but living in a small community, I see a different world.

I see into my neighbours' families in a way I'd never see in the city. These are the biological remnants of the old Canadian working class, in the sense that includes the children of the post-war migrations -- Poles, Dutch, Slovaks, and the bedrock celtic protestants. They work, they raise a kid or two, and they have fun as couples.

And I see a bunch of men dedicated most of their lives to their families, except the women are only having one kid, and they get jobs, so they have a good gig! What do I know -- but they're loud and fun-loving. Nobody has them under their thumb.


This is the ideological sleight of hand that is going on here.

The public stereotype of men is the generalization of the worst qualities of the worst men to ALL men; the public stereotype of women is the generalization of the best qualities of the best women to ALL women.

It means that a man has to prove, individually, that they are NOT potential rapists! (All men are regarded as potential rapists by feminists.)

Women, on the other hand, feel justified in demanding to be treated like princesses who don't have to justify anything. That's the difference.

It's these princesses that want "equality" -- what are they talking about? How can we bestow "equality" on a Princess?

Understand, this is how today's young people face each other. Why is it so hard to accept that men (in the main) are not the evil bastards that we are asked to believe by our educational institutions? Why, when we live amongst the wonders they have created, do we expect to replace them with a workforce of these new Princesses?


Here's a little test for whoever is reading along. Ask ten mature working women you know whether they'd rather work for a man or a woman. Collate the results, and tell us about it if possible.

If queenmandy is right, it ought to be heavily weighted to favouring female bosses.

I bet the answers will surprise you!


Let me respond to the charge that this is not a practical political idea -- you really can't judge unless you compare it to the alternative. What's the alternative?

It seems to me that it's doing a Joe Clark to Trudeau -- Scheer should say, in this view, that Conservatives are as pro-woman as the Liberals, in fact, we support everything they do and will do the same. Outdoing Trudeau on Trudeau's central claim? Sorry, I remain a pessimist on that one.

The best it will do is remove feminism as an issue by making it universal. It won't win any votes. But it won't even do that because the feminists and the associated social justice types have a remarkable ability to amplify small things into headline stories, so it doesn't even succeed there.

The beauty of my view is that it's virtually what everybody (outside of the over-educated elites) believes anyway. It's most of what they experience in their everyday lives. The social justice side is well into nutty territory in its demands. It calls our culture a 'rape culture'. It isn't even close to the mainstream, yet it has the megaphone. It begs to be called to check.

Only a minority of young women actually call themselves "feminists" anymore because they feel it's gone too far! Polls indicate women are growing less and less happy, and have been since the 1950ies, believe it or not! It just takes somebody who can put this over in the glare of the hostile media.

This strategy may not work electorally, but these positions are most relevant in the urban areas with universities ... is that being missed. Those people know about the craziness the most. The reaction might be as much cultural as electoral. the reaction may be delayed. It may be only to stake out a position. The other side will defend the present gender regime. As time goes on, Conservatives are going to want to be on THIS side, the side of merit, of opportunity and growth, and the possessor of the moral high ground.

Last edited by Bugs on Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my view, everybody is an individual, regardless of gender, politics, religion, or education. Some feminists are jerks, some men are jerks, and, in my experience, most people are pretty good.
40 years ago, I worked for a finance company. My boss, the assistant manager, found out I was making more money than she was. A few years later, I was a lender for a major bank. I gave a loan to a middle aged woman with the proviso that her husband had to co-sign. She had a well paying job but bank policy was that a married woman had to have her husband co-sign. About thirty years ago, after I began my career as a Peace Officer, we were responding to a domestic dispute. The shift supervisor ordered my training officer to stay with the vehicle. He admitted that it was because she was a "girl." She was far more qualified than me. In a training scenario, she threw me over a row of desks with a short flick of her wrists.
That, in a nutshell, is the origin of feminism.

"Here's a little test for whoever is reading along. Ask ten mature working women you know whether they'd rather work for a man or a woman. If queenmandy is right, it ought to be heavily weighted to favouring female bosses."
I took the test and asked my wife. She prefers working for a male boss. First point to Bugs. :D

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fourty-eight years ago was 1969. I know about those rules, and the practices at that time. But that was when the economy was organized around family roles in a way that it isn't anymore. Men were responsible for their wives' debts, no matter what. That was a legal construct that had to be changed, and it was changed.

The big job ghettos disappeared. Typing was once a woman's job, you will remember. Every office had a female staff typing and filing. They didn't mix the sexes. Even in factories where both men and women worked, they worked in different departments. Often they started and finished at different times than the men.

And they changed all of that by 1980, 1985 at the latest. Nobody argues that women should be prevented from entering anything. If women don't receive this same wages as a man, the solution is only a phone call away. These stereotypes are at least 30 years out of date. Now it's about rape culture.

This is the situation: white males face major discrimination in getting any job in the public sector. It's not impossible, but it is very very difficult due to off-sets for various minorities (and women are one of the minorities even though they're the majority). It's the opposite of what you worry about.

I hope you continue to ask working women that question. Most women prefer working for a male boss. Why? Because they treat them fairer! How does that square with the official story?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Gender Demands of Conservatism

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB