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      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

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





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 3881
Reputation: 230.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:02 am    Post subject: Feminism as an occupational hazard Reply with quote

Quote:
Wife says her husband was called 'weak' and a 'wimp' by his supervisor
By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff
Posted Mar 30, 2017 4:39 PM CDT

(NEWSER) – Eric Donovan loved his job of 17 years at a Canadian nonprofit agency that runs group homes and programs for adults with intellectual disabilities. But during the final years of his life, that love turned to stress as Donovan felt he was being bullied by Nadine Hendricken, his supervisor at Queens County Residential Services. The stress got so bad he and his wife, Lisa, started fearing for his health. On Oct. 31, 2013, he collapsed at home. He died days later of cardiac arrest at age 47. Now, Lisa has been awarded benefits after the Workers Compensation Board of Prince Edward Island determined that Donovan's death was linked to bullying and harassment in the workplace, the CBC reports. Eric Donovan had no pre-existing medical condition that would have caused his death, the board heard. The suit also claimed he had been forced to do unsafe work and work extra hours, the Guardian reported last year.

Donovan's co-workers testified that Hendricken was known as a bully, while Donovan was known as "helpful and generous" to his colleagues and "conscientious and compassionate" with group home residents. Per his widow, things got really bad after Donovan injured his back during an attempt to restrain an aggressive client on Sept. 30, 2013. Lisa alleges that Hendricken had called Donovan a "wimp," in front of his co-workers, prior to the incident, and that when he returned to work after his medical leave, she "berated" him as "weak," again in front of colleagues. Donovan also told his wife that he overheard Hendricken telling someone else that she believed he was faking the injury. QCRS has filed an appeal, and the organization's executive director says Donovan never filed a complaint about his alleged bullying. (A 13-year-old boy who committed suicide left behind a letter on bullying.)
http://www.newser.com/story/24.....lying.html


Remember the two Liberal MPs that Justin trashed and destroyed on the whispered allegations of a female NDP MP? It can happen to a man and he will never know.

This was a case the was established to the Workman's Compensation Board! It is unlikely to get much coverage in Canada, while the rest of the world wonders about our craziness. They don't understand that we don't care (legally) about what happens to men. It's women that count.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 3881
Reputation: 230.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eight days later, and no response. What better evidence can there be when one of the most explosive issues in society gets no response whatever from so-called 'conservatives'? Particularly those who pretend to have special insight into who amongst the leadership candidates has the magic to fool the public (in large numbers) to vote for them.

They shouldn't call themselves ''conservatives' at all. They should call themselves culturally blind.

They teach this stuff in schools. Not only that, but they improve girls scores by damaging the boys. Read Christina Hoff Sommers if you don't believe it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/

Do you think this is making women happier? More prosperous? You're wrong, consistent poll results show that women, overall, have been becoming less happy since the 1960ies.

In fact, there's evidence to suggest that the reason the normal family needs two income earners to survive is because women have helped drive real wages down. There is also the increased tax load, require to finance all the new costs government has taken on as families fail. On another panel, I am posting another article about what has happened to the 'white working class' in North America in the same time period. The result is -- we are less well off, as our young men are reduced, so that girls can best them.

Quote:
Feminism was BAD for two-thirds of woman, says FAY WELDON: Outspoken She Devil author risks infuriating working mothers by claiming their cause helped to drive down men's wages by half
By Chris Hastings for The Mail on Sunday
PUBLISHED: 03:48 BST, 26 March 2017 | UPDATED: 03:48 BST, 26 March 2017

Author Fay Weldon has risked infuriating fellow feminists by claiming their cause left two-thirds of British women worse off.

In an interview in The Mail on Sunday’s Event magazine today, Weldon, 85, says the feminist revolution had adverse implications by ‘halving the male wage, so it no longer supported a family.’

That meant some women had to get jobs, even if they would rather have been at home with their children. ‘Women had to work to support the family. So for two in three women, it really was a problem.’

Elsewhere in the interview, Weldon also launches an astonishing attack on the ‘bad’ women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment. She argues that the US President’s ‘foolish’ and ‘neurotic’ accusers are trying to make a fast buck out of the situation.

Weldon is never afraid to express an unpopular or controversial opinion: ‘I think Trump hatred is a very foolish move. It seems to me to be a sort of neurotic fear of something new.’

Weldon is never afraid to express an unpopular or controversial opinion: ‘I think Trump hatred is a very foolish move. It seems to me to be a sort of neurotic fear of something new.’

‘I suspect the kind of women who Trump molests are not necessarily against the molestation but hope to make money out of it,’ she says. ‘Because not all women are good women. There are as many bad women as bad men.’

Weldon, who worked in advertising before finding fame as a novelist in the late 1960s, claims that behaviour now classed as harassment was looked upon differently in her day.

She adds: ‘In my youth, what is now seen as sexual harassment was seen as welcome attention. Actually, if men took notice of you in an office, you were very pleased.’

Her views on Trump will anger fellow feminists who have come to regard him as a hate figure because of his alleged treatment of women.

But Weldon says it’s time women stopped seeing themselves as victims. ‘This was right and proper 20 or 30 years ago when they couldn’t earn, they couldn’t work, they couldn’t join the professions. Well all that has changed.’ [....]

Read the rest of the article at : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z4dnr0hHPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


These people think -- because it doesn't bother them in any way they understand, it isn't important. But with each age-grade, it gets worse. What's going on on campuses right now will be in organizations in five years. It will start an agitation for changes, and more and more charges will be laid against men for 'sex crimes' -- except they are parlayed to Human Resources and careers are quietly sidelined. But the so-called Human Rights tribunals are now being mandated the power to violate our civil rights to enforce the 'human rights' of transsexuals, including the right to prosecute those who don't call them by the correct newly invented pronouns ... it's being accomodated in our high schools.

Believe me or not, its true, even if you work in a world of numbers where there aren't a lot of women.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 3881
Reputation: 230.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why Conservatives fail? Why can't a group of people who worry about the consequences of marijuana legalisation not understand that importance of 'the women's vote?

This is an old article, from 2015.

Quote:
Polls have consistently shown that Trudeau's Liberals hold a distinct advantage over the Conservatives among female voters. In federal polls conducted since early December that included breakdowns of support by gender, the Liberals have averaged 37 per cent among women. The Conservatives, by comparison, have averaged just 28 per cent support.

[....]

The Liberals, on the other hand, have disproportionately increased their support among women ... But Trudeau has taken that extra support away from women who voted for the NDP in 2011, rather than the Conservatives. Whereas the New Democrats have retained about 69 per cent of their support among men, they have kept just 61 per cent of it among women.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....-1.2899089


It's seems like the woman's vote -- the disparity between the genders when it comes to party support between Liberals and Conservatives -- can be as large as 10%! You'd think that would be worth addressing, wouldn't you?

Conservatives can't even comment on it once, even after being exposed to it over a ten day period? All they can think of doing is matching the pandering.

The women's vote ... you know who it is? Mostly, husbands and wives vote for the same party, with only a small discrepancy. The big difference comes from single mothers, the product of the welfare state. And, of course, the overwhelmingly female work forces that support them, as welfare workers and their ilk.

One of the biggest vote-grabbers in the last election was the bonanza that the Liberals gave to mothers. The child-care benefits.

And yet, here in the middle of a leadership race, when all we seem to be able to talk about is neither the economy nor feminism. Even though feminism is one of the things that most swings votes. We can't even criticize it, even when the Liberals are giving away borrowed money, that's how much Conservatives are locked into this endless pandering. Ever since Joe Clark McTeer.

The discussion can't even get into economic issues. Even the realization that we are using borrowed money to throw into the bottomless pit of female desires.

Instead, the discussion is on this mysterious quality that I call 'royal jelly'.

It's like Conservatives don't know what they're for until their leader tells them -- and then they just hope he/she has the magic, the royal jelly stuff. Don't you think this is rather pathetic? In a leadership race?
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


Feminism as an occupational hazard

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB