Laureen Harper! She gave an excellent speech at the Conservative convention. PM Harper gave a speech too, but as a female, I was the most impressed with Laureen's speech. She is beautiful, smart, and independent. It's no surprise that a strong guy like Stephen Harper would choose such a remarkable woman to marry. He knew a good thing when she sent that arrow into his heart!
I hope young girls in Canada will make Laureen their role model.
Conservative women are partners, not leeches. They realize they can be whatever they want to be, and they still have that pioneering spirit running strong in their veins. Feminists say they don't "need" men to be successful. Well, they are not happy because they fear the very thing that could make them complete, a family. They toil away at a "job", hoping it will fulfill them, and can not understand why they are unhappy. It's because they are one dimensional in a three dimensional world! They are lifeless cartoons, pretending they have the solutions for all women. Their mantra is no-men, no-kids, and consequently no-love. Kind of a bleak life in my opinion.
Women should look at Laureen Harper for an idea of what a "REAL" woman can be, a mother, a wife, and a career woman, without having to give up anything they want in their lives. They know they can support their husband without disappearing. They are confident in life, not afraid of their own shadows. They have compassion for those who are weaker, but you will not find them protesting on Parliament Hill, asking for the government to save them. You will find them at soup kitchens helping out, you will find them knitting mittens for kids in Afghanistan, you will find them helping the elderly, and the disabled, not by protesting, but by doing.
That is the difference between feminists and real women, one talks a lot, the other quietly does what the other is talking about.
I like our secret weapon, let's not keep her hidden so well! Or is she the "hidden agenda"?
44 comments:
What a great idea honouring, Mrs Harper. How can anyone not love her?
I think the public would love her too if given a chance. CTV and CBC did not have this on tonight. It was not the headline on the National.Why?
She will remain our best kept secret, it seems..for now! Their loss,huh?
He knew a good thing when she sent that arrow into his heart!
Damn modern medicine. Maybe she should try again.
What a classy lady! She is smart,articulate, charismatic got a great sense of humor and beautiful.
PM Harper is blessed to have her for his wife and in turn we are blessed as well.
They need to get her out to do more public speaking. I'm pretty sure she would draw a lot of people towards the CPC who hadn't thought about before.
Best kept secret! You Bet!
...got a great sense of humor and beautiful.
Uhhh, easy tiger.
"Feminists say they don't "need" men to be successful. Well, they are not happy because they fear the very thing that could make them complete, a family. They toil away at a "job", hoping it will fulfill them, and can not understand why they are unhappy. It's because they are one dimensional in a three dimensional world! They are lifeless cartoons, pretending they have the solutions for all women. Their mantra is no-men, no-kids, and consequently no-love. Kind of a bleak life in my opinion."
You don' know a lot of feminists, do you.
Hate to break it to you, but I know a lot of feminists who have husbands and children. Some of them even quit their jobs to raise them!
Give David some slack, he's looking for problems in all the wrong places.
I think he needs a hug.
Well Gayle, if you were really honest, you would realize that feminists in the true sense of the meaning are man-haters. Those feminists you mention sound a lot like Sarah Palin!
That's funny Hunter, because I looked the word "feminist" up and found this:
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
What dictionary are you using?
I can't stay up and debate feminism but I will say this one thing. I do believe that it can be loosely interpreted to suit the individual that is applying it.
i.e. Women, I sense often do apply it to themselves to express independence,socially progressive etc..
There also are women that have all of those elements but would not consider themselves a feminist.
There is THAT, label aspect.It is a word that really has lost it's umph, in my humble opinion.
Like a Seinfeld episode....Cheers!
HA, you had to look it up in the dictionary??? Didn't you already know what a feminist is?
My Hunter dictionary states that feminists are frustrated university girls who have never had a date and blame all men for their failures.
Hunter - I am well aware of what a feminist is. I posted the definition for your edification, since you clearly are not.
Bec actually has it right - some feminists shy away from the term "feminist" - something about how some people try to twist the meaning of "feminist" into "manhater"...
But there is no doubt about what the term really means.
I was wondering what you have against women who strive to get a higher education? Being a university graduate myself, I was also wondering where you met those "girls" who have never had a date and who blame men for all their "failures". In all my years at university I never met anyone like that.
Hello Gayle, if you had ever read my blog before tonight you might realize that I too have a university education, and that might just be where I have met those feminists. My degree does not define who I am, or how I think about other people, as your nose in the air post about your own degree seems to define you.
Talk about arrogant and elitist. What if I was a loving mother staying home to take care of her children, would a lack of post secondary eduction make me less of a Mom? Or a Woman?
Take your "better than thou" attitude back to Rabble.
I feel I should weigh in at this point. My mother is from a past generation (she's 82) and did not go past high school, given that she was 19 when she married my father - because she wanted to marry him. She was a stay at home mom (for which I am grateful) and she told me one time that she resented the attitude of modern career women who looked down their noses at her because she CHOSE to stay home and raise us. She highly resented the line: "oh, well you never worked, did you?" It hurt and angered her that other women did not respect her decision or t he 24/7 work involved in running a household and raising two children.
My father gave my mom full rein when it came to finances and all decisions relating to the home, family, schools, etc. My mother may not have had the benefit of a higher education but she sure is wise and intelligent.
She had no problem being identified as a wife and mother because that was her reality which she chose for herself. It is unfortunate that the loudest feminists are those who push a man-dismissing agenda because they give other independent and strong women a bad name.
As for Laureen Harper - I think she's great. There are those who like to portray Stephen Harper as a woman-hater but I always counter that statement with a question - how can he hate women when he's married to an attractive, intelligent, and strong woman like Laureen Harper. She is, indeed, a great lady who embodies an independent spirit with responsible parenthood (and there is NOTHING wrong with being a responsible parent) who can hold her own with her husband and any other person with whom she comes in contact. She is outgoing where Stephen Harper is reticent. She is one very bright lady and I, for one, admire her very much.
It seems that the past three PMs have impressive wives. Aline Chretien is a classy lady - well-spoken and cultured as compared with her crafty and crass husband. Sheila Martin is sophisticated and very wise as compared with her bumbling husband. Sheila gave an interview - to MacLean's - which showed her strength and amazing intelligence. It's a shame that their husbands didn't learn a thing or two from these two impressive ladies.
I just remembered something. When Laureen Harper made the decision to use her husband's last name, the press made something of an issue over that. You know, it really kills me that those who trumpet a woman's right to choose her life (and I'm all for that) are the first to criticize a woman who does something traditional like taking her husband's last name. From what I've seen, Laureen Teskey Harper is not a doormat and if she chooses to use her husband's name, there should be no criticism because SHE MADE THAT DECISION FOR HERSELF.
Hunter - you are entitled to your opinions and your take on things. It is incumbent on visitors to this blog to respect that right and to not criticize but to offer a differing view - without the remarks. Please do not feel that you need to respond to those people - your arguments and opinions are yours and they can stand on their own.
You do not have to reply to any remark which denigrates your experience or knowledge. Ignore those commenters and perhaps they will cease and desist or change their method of responding.
It strikes me as odd that your detractors seem to be experts on every topic you happen to blog and it is even more odd that they know so many people who are the opposite of what you are blogging. Imagine that.
Keep your own course, Hunter, and don't become ensnared in endless arguments with people who seek only to disrupt your blog.
i love this topic.
my feelings are simply this:
It's all about choice. Feminism has allowed us the ability to chose the path we want, and what works best for us. Feminism is not about telling us what that choice should be.
Torian - thank you, thank you, thank you. Yes - exactly right. Now, can we convince others of your definition which, by the way, is the correct and rational definition.
And, a little off-topic but along the lines of choosing: I have noticed that the people who trumpet pro-choice are the same ones who slag and otherwise try to muzzle those who are pro-life. It's funny how those who push the most for "choice" are those who criticize most vociferously those who make a choice that is different than those who push "choice" as an absolute must.
Hyprocrites.
"I was also wondering where you met those "girls" who have never had a date and who blame men for all their "failures". In all my years at university I never met anyone like that."
They are the some of the ones taking "women's studies" and the one's teaching women's studies are the kind of "feminist" Hunter is talking about.
EofE
I am actually one of those pro-choice people...however I've never tried to muzzle those who are against abortion.
Strong believer in "I may not agree with your beliefs, but I will defend your ability to speak them"
Torian - you sound like a very rational and intelligent person with whom one could have a very productive discussion. I wish more pro-choice folks were as open and rational, not to mention respectful, as you are. For myself, I am conditionally pro-life but I, also, would not try to muzzle a pro-lifer. When I say conditional, I mean to say that if a woman's life is in danger then I would support terminating the pregnancy. I become fully pro-life when termination becomes a method of birth control. The choice to have intimate relations is one which comes with probable outcomes and pregnancy is but one of them.
"I may not agree with your beliefs, but I will defend your ability to speak them"
Torian, I wish we could drill this into the heads of politicians, activists, and the media. We'd be better off.
EoE,
Well said. It does ruin a good discussion when you feel that your host is about to be attacked.
It is personal choice and it is an insult to some of us to be labelled for those choices. Great idea, Hunter!
Thanks, Bec. I wish more people were like Torian who presents her ideas and opinions without calling down those of anybody else - this leads to civilized discussion and a sharing of knowlege and ideas. Unfortunately, Hunter seems to attract some who are downright ignorant and one or two who just like to argue and will never, ever give credence to the blogger or anybody who is a CPC supporter. I have to wonder why people like that even bother to wake up in the morning when they cannot add anything constructive.
Hunter - keep on the way you are.
Hunter - I never said you did not have a university degree. In fact, I always assumed you were university educated. What I said was you seem to have something against women who attended university - since you criticized them twice here.
I am also not sure why the fact I attended university makes me "arrogant and elitist". If that is all it takes does that not make YOU arrogant and elitist too?
And if you had read MY post, you would have seen this:
"I know a lot of feminists who have husbands and children. Some of them even quit their jobs to raise them!"
That includes a woman I know with a career as a lawyer, one with a PhD in one of the sciences, and my mother.
I do not think I am the one who has been jumping to conclusions here.
"It's all about choice. Feminism has allowed us the ability to chose the path we want, and what works best for us. Feminism is not about telling us what that choice should be."
Exactly.
There are many of us that were young women when the feminist movement got started, with the burning bra demonstrations etc. We are the ones who were mocked for not working outside the home, we are the ones who watched as these so called leaders said men were horrible things.
When these feminists did marry or have children they followed Dr Spock to the letter re childraising.
That description of radical feminist still sticks in our mind when someone calls themselves a feminist. Feminism is not the same as feminist.
They are the some of the ones taking "women's studies" and the one's teaching women's studies are the kind of "feminist" Hunter is talking about.
if it's all about choice, as hunter claims, why mock the choices of women who choose to study or teach women's studies? or is any about making certain choices? the kind hunter and her ilk can tolerate?
MaryT - as always, you are bang-on. It is unconscionable that the Lib side pushes day care as the solution that "Canadians want" while stay at home parents have been dismissed as nothing when they request some sort of tax break. It is almost as though raising one's children is an act of deviance. If it's about choice, why are stay at home mothers given short shrift. For that matter, why are stay at home dads given the old hairy eyeball. I know a couple of fathers who stayed home when their kids were little and they loved it. Their wives were the first to admit that their husbands were better at the parenting game than they were. The result? Very well-adjusted young adults.
One of my friends is married to a junior high teacher and she said that she can usually determine which children were raised by their parents and which were raised in day care.
Personally, I cannot imagine what it would have been like if I had been put in day care when I was a little guy. I thank God every day that my mom stayed home while we were little - there is nothing like a parent. If I had to do it over, I'd be the one staying home and raising the little ones until they were relatively self-sufficient.
I believe in equal opportunity and freedom. I do not believe in abdication of parenting and I do not belive in belittling parents who stay home to raise their children.
Well, good old Iggy has not accused our party of being racist. The National Post put down his BS quite soundly but, to be honest, it is time that our party began taking legal action against the Lib party for its dishonest, false and slanderous accusations.
And the Lib supporters call our PM a liar. Sheesh. Talk about the pot calling the kettle a dark colour.
Hypocrite - thy name is Liberal.
"I wish more pro-choice folks were as open and rational, not to mention respectful, as you are."
i wish more anti-choice people were honest and intelligent, not to mention civil.
KEvron
I hope young girls in Canada will make Laureen their role model.
You know she's a divorcée, don't you?
East of Eden:
Kelly McParland lied in that editorial.
Conservatives are always lying about the proportion of women and visible minorities in their caucus. Why is that, EoE?
Anyway, check out this link to the Public Policy Forum’s report on the 39th Parliament. Conservatives have the lowest % of MP's with university degrees.
...*snort*
EofE: Some people do not have a choice about day care. They need to work to pay the bills, and daycare enables them to do this. If they didn't work, Hunter would be dumping on them big time.
If someone chooses to stay home with their children, why should they get a tax break? If they have no income, the spouse gets a deduction.
SQ - the tax break is not all that great. I agree that some couples do not have a choice but for both of them to work - this happened even back in my day but...I know so many couples who spend a fortune on holidays, vehicles, sports toys, activities for the kids...that they both have to work. I remember the day when our parents put together our sports leagues, involved themselves in Cubs and Scouts, volunteered at the schools, etc. There was real parental involvement and we were better for it.
Shoot, we didn't have a TV until I was 14 but we never really missed it. I was involved in Scouts, some school activities, volunteer work, church activities, homework, chores around the house - none of that cost an arm and a leg.
If there is a government subsidy for day care, then a parent who stays at home should receive an equal, tax-free subsidy. It does cost money to raise a child at home, believe me. I find it very disturbing that we have governments which push day care but ignore stay-at-home parents. Where is the equality? Where is the choice? The benefits should be equal.
What do you think? Should the playing field be leveled? Should parents have a real choice to either work and put the child in day care or have one of them stay home?
EofE: The stay at home parents still get the $100/month. They just don't spend it on day care.
And I'm sure Mrs. Harper either had a nanny or put the kids in daycare.
SQ - Laureen having or not having a nanny is not germaine to this discussion. The $100 is taxable and it doesn't cover very much. The subsidy on day care comes to more than $100 per month. So, I ask again, are you in favour of a level playing field?
EofE: People make choices. If someone wants to sit at home with the kids, I don't feel I should have to pay them. On the other hand, if someone wants to go work, I don't have a problem with subsidized day care -- up to a point. It should be income sensitive, not like here in Quebec where everyone pays $7/day.
So, Hunter, what is your degree in? You always seem to get defensive about it.
SQ - I'm all in favour of people having the right to make choices of their own free will. I am not, however, in favour of an unbalanced playing field. It is unfortunate the some political thought believes that parents are the less-qualified persons to raise children even though centuries of evidence shows that parents are quite capable of raising their own children.
I believe in equality and, clearly, subsidizing day care but not parents who stay home is inequality and I am dead set against that.
SQ - BTW, one does not "sit at home" when raising children. It is a very demanding job - ask anybody who has raised his or her own children. It's rewarding but it is strenuous. Women have, for the past few decades, asked for financial recognition for the work they perform when staying home - all to no avail. I believe that any parent who stays at home is worth a salary of at least 50k per year and that's a low-ball figure, to be sure. Along with raising the children, the parent who stays at home typically performs most, if not all, housekeeping, cooking, errands, and other chores. That, in my mind, is worth a great deal of money.
"It is unfortunate the some political thought believes that parents are the less-qualified persons to raise children... "
EofE: Please tell me who believes this. I find it an interesting statement.
I do not see any inequality when subsidization is related to income. Having children is a choice, and I am not sure how much people without children should have to subsidize those with children.
We already subsidize their education and their medical care. Subsidizing daycare to allow the "working poor" (for lack of a better word) to have the freedom to earn money to support their families is the right thing to do. However, if people have the income to pay for that daycare themselves I am not sure why I should subsidize it.
Similarly, parents who stay at home to raise their children should be subsidized on an "as need" basis. The poorest families receive subsidies in the form of income assistance programs (commonly referred to as "welfare"). As your income goes up, your subsidies decrease.
I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but I know in Alberta these welfare programs are designed to get people off the dole and into the workforce - even if that person is a single mother with two kids.
The problem I have with the current 100/month/child is that it goes to everyone, regardless of their income. I am certainly not happy about the fact that I am paying billionaires money to raise their children.
I suggest inequality comes into play when we demand that poor families go out and get jobs, while we subsidize richer families to raise their children at home.
SQ
It's interesting that you say that SAHMs "sit at home" yet you seem to place a higher value on those who "sit at daycare" and do the same...
why the differentiation?
"It's interesting that you say that SAHMs "sit at home" yet you seem to place a higher value on those who "sit at daycare" and do the same..."
Torian: If the kid is at daycare, I am assuming that the mom is working. If the kid is at home, the mom is not. I don't see what your point is...
that's my point.
It just seems that you view working outside the home as more valueable than working within the home.
You're entitled to your opinion on that, of course.
As someone who has done both, I make no value judgements on either.
Post a Comment