Why did the Status of Women Canada receive 23 million from our federal government to dish out to other organizations?? That's what I wanted to find out.
I went to the site to find out who they fund and why, I got this:
Funding
Overview
This section contains information about the funding programs administered by Status of Women Canada's Policy Research Fund and by Women's Program.
That's it, no information, no click on this, check out that, no nothing, last updated 2003-01-10??? Are they still active? What are they doing? Who are they helping? What organizations are getting the funds?
Don't get me wrong, as a female, I applaud womens groups who want to help promote equality, but really, it all comes down to, show me the money!! Where the heck did/does it go? What groups are being supported by the SOWc and what are they using it for? Are they using it to fight against Choice in Childcare?
There are many government agencies left over from the last government that need to be re-evaluated and de-funded if they are inefficient. Hope they check into this one.
1 comment:
Let’s find out a bit about the Status of Women in Canada. The following is from the Real Women of Canada’s website at: http://www.realwomenca.com/about.htm
Below is a copy of our letter to the MPs, which describes this outrageous funding in support of a special interest group of feminists and also raises objections to the re-establishment of the House of Commons Committee on the Status of Women.
April 4, 2006
Dear M.P.:
RE: THE DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES OF THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Since 1973, the federal taxpayers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to feminist-only organizations by way of the Women's Program at the Status of Women Canada. The mission statement of the Status of Women is "to promote gender equality and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country". Its practical effect, however, is that only feminist objectives and feminist women in Canada are promoted by the agency. Other women's organizations, which have differing perspectives from that of feminism are denied funding and recognition.
The Status of Women refuses to fund organizations that are not feminist on the premise that it funds only "equality - seeking" women's organizations, and in its view, only feminist organizations are validly seeking equality for women. This is highly discriminatory since most women support the equality of women - but there are different ways to interpret and achieve this objective. For example, the promotion of the equality of women is one of the objectives included in the Objects of Incorporation for REAL Women, yet the Status of Women does not accept our organization as an "equality - seeking" organization.
Feminist organizations, however, do not represent Canadian women in general but rather a special interest group of women whose ideology is that of feminism. The feminist ideology does not now, and never has had the support of the vast majority of Canadian women. Thus, this funding of the special interest group of feminists by the Status of Women is highly biased and discriminatory, and provides an uneven playing field for all other women's organizations in Canada.
Because of its discriminatory policies, the Women's Program of the Status of Women has made only a few token grants to REAL Women of Canada over the years and these small grants were stopped entirely in 1996. Nor has REAL Women been invited to participate in activities supported by the Status of Women. An exception arose in December of 1999 when the Status of Women sponsored a Consultation on Gender Equality, to which REAL Women was given an invitation. However, the feminist participants at that conference, whose organizations depend solely for their existence on the Status of Women funding, insisted that REAL Women's invitation be withdrawn. When our representative refused to leave the conference, the feminist participants isolated, ignored and then booed her and refused to permit her to participate in the conference in any way. Since that conference, REAL Women has not been invited to participate in any further conferences sponsored by the Status of Women, even though our organization represents the views of over 55,000 Canadian women.
Extent of Funding to Feminist Organizations
An application was made under the Access to Information Act for information about the funding by the Status of Women in the ten-year period from 1992 - 2002. A further application was made under the Act for information about funding for the fiscal year 2004 - 2005.
According to this material, hundreds of feminist organizations receive government funding each year from the Program. For example, between 1997 - 2003 alone, the number of recipients and the total of the grants awarded to them by Status of Women were as follows:
Year Number of Recipients Amount
1997-1998 343 $ 8,286,059
1998-1999 262 $10,321,916
1999-2000 207 $ 8,502,412
2000-2001 227 $ 9,810,390
2001-2002 215 $10,385,851
2002-2003 222 $12,297,090
Organizations funded by the Status of Women include national, provincial and regional feminist organizations, such as the following:
• The legal arm of the feminist organization, The Legal Education Action Fund (LEAF) received $900,334 over a 10-year period, 1992 - 2002, which enabled this group to intervene in court cases and to mount their own court challenges. In contrast, REAL Women of Canada was obliged to fund its own pro-family interventions before the courts.
• The National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) received $1,648,318 in the same 10-year period. In the fiscal year 2004-2005, this organization received an additional grant of $474,879.
• The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, (NAC), the umbrella group for the feminist organizations of Canada, received $984,551 in the 10-year period, and In the fiscal year 2004 - 2005 received an additional $150,000.
• Child Care lobby groups, such as the Canadian Child Care Federation, and the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, received $1,362,209 between 1992 and 2002. These organizations form the pressure group for a national child care plan as recently proposed and implemented by the former Liberal government.
In the fiscal year 2004 - 2005 these child care lobby groups received a further $483,753 from the Women's Program. This large grant was given during the time that the former Liberal government was negotiating with the provinces for a national child care program.
On February 16, 2006, the tax funded Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada launched a Canada wide campaign called "Code Blue" to lobby for and work with the provincial / territorial governments and parliamentarians to prevent the present Conservative government from cancelling the federal / provincial agreements on child care made last year by the former Liberal government.
It is significant that these child care lobby groups have the most to gain from a national child care plan since such a program would provide them with financial security by placing them on the government payroll with secure income and benefits.
• In the 20-month period preceding December 4, 1998, lesbian organizations received $250,918. In the fiscal year 2004 - 2005, an additional $90,280 was awarded to a homosexual / lesbian association.
• 524 women's shelters across Canada have been funded by the Status of Women, even though such shelters fall within provincial jurisdiction. These women's centres serve as agents of change for feminists in communities across Canada. Feminists claim they provide protection from male assault, in spite of the fact that a Statistics Canada study, released in July 2003, found that more men were killed, hurt, or threatened by their partners in 2001 than in previous years. The study "Family Violence in Canada," funded by the Federal Family Violence Initiative, found that spousal violence has increased for both men and women. In 2001, there were 344 incidents per 100,000 women, and for men, there were 62 incidents for every 100,000 - the latter is up 40% from six years ago. Although there were many more incidents of assault against women, this does not mean that men should be neglected.
• The pro-abortion organization, BC Pro-Choice Action Network, initially received $60,220 in the 10-year period fro 1992 - 2002. However, in 2004 - 2005 it received $27,400. According to information on their web site, the spokesperson for this organization, Joyce Arthur, stated that opposition to abortion "comes primarily from religious justifications for oppressing women" and is due to a need to "maximize [the Catholic Church's] membership levels to maintain their worldly influence and wealth". This pro-abortion organization also accused pro-life Christians of being "religious fanatics" who do "little or nothing for children once they are born". She stated that pro-life Christians are "anti-woman and anti-child," and had views which were "uninformed, sexist, cruel". She also accused pro-life Christians of lacking the ability to empathize, which "breeds intolerance, hate crimes, and war". Ms. Arthur further stated, according to the web site, that pro-lifers' attitude towards women is like "the slaveholder's attitude to blacks, and the Nazi's attitude to Jews". That an organization that expresses such bigoted views, receives public funding is shameful and an unpardonable offense to the Canadian taxpayer.
• Organizations to promote the decriminalization of prostitution in Canada, namely the Canadian National Coalition of Experiential Women (CNCEW), received $325,000 to actively campaign to decriminalize solicitation for prostitution. In the fiscal year 2004 - 2005, it received an additional $322,646 from the Women's Program. This large grant was made at the time that the Liberal government had established a sub-committee of the Justice Committee to study the issue of prostitution. This Committee recommended that prostitution be decriminalized.
House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women in Canada (FEWO)
It is also a concern to us, that the House of Commons Standing Committee of the Status of Women, which was established in October, 2004, serves to promote only feminist organizations and their feminist agenda in Canada. The Committee stated that it promotes "equality - seeking" women's organizations. Of course, its narrow definition of "equality" excludes all other women's organizations. The Committee's first report, tabled in the House of Commons on February 10, 2005, recommended that funding for women's [feminist] groups be increased by 25%. In its second report, tabled in the House of Commons on April 19, 2005, the Committee recommended that a "gender analysis" be carried out on all federal government departments, their policies, and proposed legislation. In practical terms, the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that all government actions be subject to feminist overview and approval in order to ensure that the feminist ideology is spread throughout Canada.
Such extreme recommendations by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women expose it as being out of touch with the views of most Canadian women. This group's recommendations fail to comply with the democratic process in regard to a full consultation and fair treatment of all organizations.
Therefore, we request, that the discriminatory Status of Women, as well as the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (FEWO), be disbanded, since they represent only the singular views of a special interest group of feminists. In short, these two agencies serve no purpose but to promote the views of a handful of extremist feminist organizations at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. These feminist ideologues serve only to increase intolerance and disrespect towards those who do not share their views.
In this regard, it should be pointed out that women's organizations, being special interest organizations, should be self supporting as REAL Women of Canada has been since it was federally incorporated in 1983. REAL Women has managed to exist without debt, financed solely by the donations and dues of our grassroots members with only a few minor grants from the government. Similarly, all special interest groups should be required to do the same.
Summary
Feminist groups have few, if any, members, and are, in effect, mostly phantom organizations sustained only by the funding they receive from the Status of Women. Since these organizations represent no one but the radical feminists who run them, they should not receive financial support from the Canadian taxpayer.
Yours truly,
Lorraine McNamara
National President
REAL Women of Canada
Please write to:
The Right Hon. Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Building
The father’s organization is taking these people to court for saying nasty things about them and insinuating that the fathers are a hate group.
It seems MP Betty Hilton (Kamloops, Thompson, and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): in Parliament spoke out against the document.
Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Status of Women Canada is supporting the idea of a “hate watch group” to monitor men’s and parents’ organizations across Canada. This recommendation is founding the report commissioned by the minister called “School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse”. Two well-known and respectable organizations in British Columbia are on that hate list. How can the minister justify spending public funds on an absurd list that promotes hatred against respected parents’ organizations?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the work of Status of Women Canada is actually to discourage hate against any person and the basis of gender. I have to say that when I look at the literally thousands of women in Canada still working for 64 cents on a dollar earned by a man, the thousands of women in Canada working full time trying to raise a family on less than $20,000, and the fact that 7% of boards of directors across the country are women, I think we have a long way to go to achieve equality in this country.
I hope the status of women Canada continues its good work.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker those are nice comments but they have nothing to do with the compiling of a hate list. The minister spent 75,000 precious taxpayer dollars on a report filled with hate and inflammatory language that does nothing to raise the status of women but everything to denigrate men, families and parent organization volunteers. We know Liberals have contempt for Canadians but never suspected they would subsidize groups to demonstrate that contempt. Why did the minister spend 75,000 on a project that is a poorly disguised attack on men and the family unit?
{Translation}
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I find it troubling that the member is referring to work done by three professors a Université Laval. If she does not agree with the recognized work done by universities on the issue of gender equality, that is her prerogative. However, I think the Government of Canada has a duty to ensure equality between men and women. Three professors from Université Laval have conducted a study; we should at least look at it.}
The 64 cents on the dollar a man makes is a lie.
The following article is found in the “Independent Women’s Forum” at www.iwf.org/campuscorner/news/news it is titled “Working Girl” by Arrah Nielsen.
Working Girl
{“Feminist groups have parroted the statistics that women earn only 76 cents to the male dollar so many times that it is seldom challenged by mainstream media of anywhere else in the popular culture. Feminist groups imply that the wage gap is due to discrimination and that all women are victims.
But college women ready to graduate and find a job should take heart. The wage gap is misleading statistics that fails to account for several crucial factors impacting woman’s wages such as:
•Time worked, Women take much more time out of the work force and assume a greater share of the domestic load. Long, uninterrupted employment correlates with higher wages.
•College majors and career choices. Women disproportionately major in the social sciences and enter lower paying, but more personal fulfilling, careers such as elementary education and social work. Bachelor’s degrees in the hard sciences and technology command higher incomes than those in the liberal arts.
•Playing it safe. Women are generally less willing than men to take dangerous or unpleasant jobs that offer higher wages to offset the extra risk.
In short it’s women’s life and career choices—not a patriarchal conspiracy—that result in women earning less that men. The best way to boost women’s earnings is to inform them of why men earn more and leave the choices and the consequences up to them.
Introduction
No doubt, you’ve heard feminists parrot the statistic that women earn only 76 cents to the male dollar. Senator John Kerry repeated this statistic in the fall on the campaign trail, as did Kim Gandy of the National Organization for Women. The 76 cents statistic has been repeated so often that most people simply take it at face value.
It probably has made the fun job of looking for post-graduation employment that much better, since you are preparing to get gypped as well as get a job. But take heart: as the real facts about the wage gap reveal, women can make just as much money as men. It all depends on the choices that you make.
What is the Wage Gap?
Equal pay for equal work has been enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act since it was made law in 1972. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also banned sex-based wage discrimination. So it seems pretty remarkable that the wage gap is so wide and pervasive today. Attorneys should be having a field day with class action law suites over this grave injustice. But they are not. Could it be that the legal establishment is itself involved in this glaring obvious patriarchal conspiracy?
Fortunately, no. The wage gap is a misleading statistic. It compares all women to all men. Thus, the male orthopedic surgeon working in excess of 70 hours per week is tossed alongside the female receptionist working 40 hour weeks. The statistic does not take into account the level of education, the years of work, and the choice of education. And these factors can have a big impact on how much money you make.
For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports “that the average person working 45 hours per week earns 44 percent more pay—that is, 44 percent more pay for 13 percent more work, “In other words, a small difference in number of hours worked can add up to a big difference in dollars earned. Women are 50 times more likely than men to take time out of the workforce, for care-giving and other reasons. This difference should not be overlooked when trying to get at the roots of the wage gap.
When males and females in the same occupation, with similar qualifications and experience, are compared there is virtually no difference in their pay. A definitive study of gender wage gap conducted by economist June O’Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, Found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.
The Real Reason for the Wage Gap: The Choices Women Make
Warren Farrell, three time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) New York City, points out in Why Men Earn More that one reason men earn more than women is because they are for more likely to take unpleasant and dangerous jobs, what Farrell calls the “death and exposure professions”. For example, firefighting, truck driving, mining, and logging are just a few high risk jobs that are over 95 percent male. Conversely, low risk jobs, like secretarial work or childcare, are over 95 percent female.
Farrell points out that in California, prison guards can earn $70,000per year in addition to full medical benefits, and retire after 30 years with a hefty retirement package. But it takes little imagination to figure out why California still has a difficult time staffing its prison, and it goes without saying that most prison guards are male. Says Farrell, “As with most jobs, there’s an inverse relationship between fulfillment and pay.”
Because men are more likely to take jobs that are unpleasant, dangerous, or dull in exchange for higher pay, they reap the financial benefit. Farrell, summarizes this
phenomenon this way: “jobs…that expose you to the sleet and heat pay more than those that are indoors and neat.” Individual women could choose to enter more risky but higher paying professions, but most choose not to
There is little evidence to suggest that women earn less than men merely because they are women. In fact, according to the 1960 U.S. Census of Population, a decade before the Equal Pay Act was passed; never married childless college-educated white women who worked full time were earning 106 percent of what their male counterparts were making. Furthermore, Warren Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor’s degrees in which women’s starting salaries actually exceed men’s. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts’ salaries.
Why do women earn less than men? The primary reason is that on average maximizing earnings is less of a priority for women than it is for men. Men are 50 times more likely to be the primary or sole breadwinners for their families and even well-educated women, who are presumably more ambitious than the average Jane, are less committed to their careers and less willing to make sacrifices for them. Surveys of females MBAs reveal that ten years after graduation, 20 percent do not work at all, having opted out of the work force in favor of being stay-at –home moms. A Korn/Ferry study revealed that only 14 percent of women, compared to 46 percent of men, say they actually want to be a CEO.”
Comparable Worth? Comparable to What?
But feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women and the Ms. Foundation don’t accept these differences in decisions as the real reason for differences in pay. They argue that female-dominated occupations are undervalued. Thus they insist that women who enter occupations such as elementary education and secretarial work, which have low starting pay and little opportunity for advancement, are victims of an economic system that undervalues and under-compensates their work. They argue for “comparable worth” legislation that would have the government decide how much professions ought to be paid in order that secretaries make the same wage as truck drivers.
To proponents of comparable worth, the mere fact that female-dominated occupations such as secretarial work and childcare pay less than male-dominated jobs like construction work, which require less education, is concrete proof that women are being unfairly discriminated against. What feminists and other comparable worth proponents overlook is that it is the market, not anonymous committees of wage makers, that determines what employees are paid. Comparable worth? Comparable to what?
Comparable worth was implemented in Australia in the 1970s, and while it failed to close the gender wage gap, it succeeded in creating labor shortages. "A 10 percent gap for full time workers and a 20 per cent gap for all workers remains, mainly because women have different labour force characteristics than men."
Minnesota experienced similar problems with comparable worth. University of Virginia economist Stephen Rhoads showed in his book Incomparable Worth that "pay equity" in Minnesota resulted in depressed wages and labor shortages in crucial occupations such as nursing and computer engineering. Furthermore, while the city of St. Paul spent an additional $32 million on salary expense between 1985 and 1992, debate raged on about which occupations were being compensated fairly and whether Minnesota was in compliance with the law at all.
In a free market, wages are a compromise between what employees are willing to work for and what their employers are willing to pay them. Instituting comparable worth will ultimately only hurt women and the economy by making women more expensive to employ, under-compensating certain professions causing labor surpluses and shortages, and stifling economic growth. There is simply no way that unelected bureaucrats can synthesize the full volume of information reflected in wage rates. The most accurate labor statistics available run a year behind...Wages are most accurately and fairly determined by the free association of labor participants.
Hearth and Home
Another reason women’s average earnings are less than men’s is that they tend to shoulder a greater share of the domestic load at home, and take more time out of the workforce for care-giving. Women more than men adjust their work schedules to accommodate their families. And in poll after poll, they express a preference to do so.
"Well, why can’t men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional feminist argument goes. Some couples manage to create such an arrangement, but in general couples typically find it easier for each partner to specialize and make the sacrifices required to sustain the family. Most couples find that one career has to give when children come along and it is usually the mother’s.
Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women’s expressed preferences, this isn’t a problem that needs to be solved.
Case Study: You
What factors are you taking into account as you start looking for a job? Probably potential earnings are just one of many factors you are considering before entering a career field. Personal fulfillment, safety, job flexibility, and working conditions weigh in along with salary.
It is wrong to assume that maximizing earnings is the primary goal of every worker. The important thing is that everyone is free to make their own decisions and is constrained only by the talent and ambition they possess. If women earn less than men as a result of their own choices and preferences, than that is an outcome we should be willing to accept.
Conclusion
Feminists have ignored how women’s lives and goals differ from men’s. In doing so they have overlooked the fact that it women’s life choices -- not sex discrimination -- are responsible for the infamous wage gap. In order for women to reach absolute parity with men, they will have to work full time all the time, and choose career paths that pay more, but are less flexible and fulfilling. This recipe for equality is at odds with what most women want, but that does not seem to matter to feminists pushing the notion that women are shortchanged economically. They have mistaken equal opportunity for equal outcomes.
Understanding the reasons why men earn more than women, not promoting the paranoid, tiresome notion that women are victims, is the key to boosting earnings. It is the knowledge of how individual choices impact workplace earnings -- not divisive ideology -- that will empower women. College women should take note: the truth will set you free.
Arrah Nielsen is a former junior fellow with IWF.
Post a Comment