Sunday, March 08, 2009

Oh, I Forgot.....It's International Women's Day

Well, you have to forgive me because I was busy making cinnamon buns and transplanting my petunias into bigger pots! I am a woman, I celebrate that fact every single day, not just one day a year! We females have it made. We contribute so much by being moms, wives, volunteers and career women, all wrapped up in one package! We are not victims, we are the engines of our families and communities.

What bothers me are the feminists who keep on insisting that we are victims, we are weak and dependent on men for our fulfillment, BS! Enter our favorite victim....

Women still have a long way to go

Belinda Stronach

International Women's Day, first commemorated almost 100 years ago, is a time to celebrate a century of achievement and advancement for women in Canada.

But it also serves as an annual reminder that pride in this progress cannot make us complacent before the issues that affect women in their everyday lives.

Women with young daughters know the mixed emotions that can stem from conversations about the rights and relative status of women. So many young people today hold the belief that the battle for equality has been well and truly won.

This is encouraging because it means they themselves are encountering few obvious systemic obstacles or barriers.


Alright, I will admit right out that I never liked Belinda as either a Conservative or a Liberal, so I might be biased in thinking this is such a fluff piece that REAL women should be embarrassed. I always thought she was in politics because her father wanted her in there, and that the power brokers misread the political climate. They thought that the Liberals would win in 2006, therefore the floor crossing. Comments in () are mine.

First, we need to understand that the price of our century of achievement is the need for vigilance. (This does not make sense, the price of success? If you have succeeded, the price is zero.) The recent decision of the federal government to weaken provisions relating to pay equity for Canada's federal public servants demonstrates how tenuous some of our victories may be. If we are silent on this issue, it will become easier for governments to ignore the voices of women. (True Liberal blather, says nothing but sounds good. Pay equity already is the law. Equal pay for equal work is the law. Equal pay for a secretary versus a firefighter, is not and can not ever be law. What a can of worms that would be! I am a woman and therefore I deserve to be paid the same as a doctor even though I didn't bother to go to school and get my degree, but hey, a burger flipper deserves the same pay as a doctor don't you know?)

Second, we need to encourage policies and build institutions that help to empower the equal treatment of women. Among other things, that means stepping up the pressure on governments to make a priority of implementing quality and affordable child care right across our country. (Daycare does NOT empower women, it makes us weaker, ask any Mom if they WANT to put their children in daycare!) It is distressing that at a time of massive government spending in the name of stimulus, there has been little public pressure on Ottawa to fund a system of child care and early learning, an investment that would create jobs in the short-term but would pay off again down the road in the form of better educated children and more successful women in the workforce.


As I was reading this article, I actually felt sorry of Belinda, if she and other feminists actually think that daycare empowers women, they are so wrong. It takes away from a woman's ability to be there to raise their own children instead of some stranger who might not have the same values as they do. The best solution for moms/dads is to be able to stay home with their babies, if that is not possible then family and friends/neighbours should be the next alternative, daycare should be the last resort, not the first. I wonder if Belinda put her kids in a daycare?

What is most astounding are the comments, remember this is the Toronto Star, the posters are not buying the "poor me" garbage, pay attention to the agree/disagree numbers.


Ms. Stronach!

It would be GREAT to see you back in the House of Commons as a member! Please!!!

Submitted by greatgodfrey at 10:05 AM Sunday, March 08 2009

* Agree * | * Disagree 15 * | * Alert a moderator

Woman's Work

Wage parity will be achieved when women accept good paying jobs like: road asphalt layer, roof tar applicator, high steel construction, sewer repair, fork lift operate, dump truck driver, iron ore miner, hydro transition tower repair, water and sewer repair, carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, concrete formers. All pay women the same as men. Go for it. Or are they just too hard and dirty to contemplate?

Submitted by builder.m at 10:04 AM Sunday, March 08 2009

* Agree 10 * | * Disagree 3 * | * Alert a Moderator

Oh Man

Speaking as a man Pay equity is just the government trying to meddle in the market place. If a woman wants to be a fire"person" they get paid the same as a man. If a man wants to be an office assistant they get paid the same as a woman. Trying to say that a certain job has the same value as another job therefore the pay should be the same is stupid. It is trying to artificially increase or decrease the value of the job by some set of rules made up by some Star Chamber the market should decide what a job is worth. As for politics like always the "Belinda" never sees the forest through the trees. Guess what; I looked at the make up of the council and school boards in my city and women far out number men. Just because women don't want! to go to the show does not mean they are not involved in politics. Local politics effects peoples lives far more than provincial and federal and at least in my city it is dominated by women.

Submitted by Geoff at 9:29 AM Sunday, March 08 2009

* Agree 7 * | * Disagree 4 * | * Alert a moderator


Seems like during INTERNATIONAL Women's Day, Belinda might have mentioned the women of Afghanistan who are truly fighting for their independence and equality. Feminists are too selfish to actually fight for women who need help.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

It struck me as highly hypocritical for Belinda Stronach to be writing about women's struggle, considering that her father handed everything to her on a silver platter. What, really, has she achieved? Well, she did run for office and win. She did cross the floor to obtain a cabinet post. She did retire from politics.

Belinda portrayed herself, during her campaign, as a typical single mother. Balderdash. Has she ever had to stretch a dollar to feed her kids? Has she ever worried about paying the rent? Has she ever had to pay rent?

I agree with Hunter - women are not week little pieces of fluff who need to be empowered by leaving her kids with a stranger. Women are powerful and have always been powerful - the difference is that before we had systemic exclusion of women in the higher echelons. That, I can assure you, is not the case today.

Unknown said...

The Toronto Tar is notorious for not printing letters and comments that don't fall in line to support their cause or mission as most people know. I have written a comment to Belinda's piece and needless to say it was not published. I didn't think that Belinda is much of a poster child for feminism going by her political record (ask Harper) or her family record(ask Domi's wife).
She may be a poster child for women inheriting great gobs of money from Daddy and the press over impressed by her press conferences with the canapes and champagne. Her run at the leadership of the Conservative party proved how incompetent she really was ( all she had was money) I think most would agree.

liberal supporter said...

You must be working with ChuckerCanuck. Your plan to gain a majority is quite clear. On election day, the "lefties" will all be incapacitated and unable to get to the polling stations, because they will be too busy laughing at posts such as this one. It really does take a special skill to squeeze so much misrepresentation and plain old BS in one post. Well done!

Southern Quebec said...

Has anyone noticed that Hunter has not mentioned Dear Leader's declaration of defeat in Afghanistan? Does this mean we don't have to wear red on Friday anymore because even HRH PMSH doesn't support the troops? You may not make sense most days Hunter, but you are alway good for a laugh. Well done! :)

Anonymous said...

So, L.S. and S.Q....are you two like boyfriend-girlfriend or what? It seems you alsways show up here holding hands.

Care to comment on Belinda's article? Of course not. Rule #235-B of the liberal manifesto states that if your enemy (read: the truth) has got you backed into a corner, change the topic, shoot the messenger and deflect!

What amateurs.

liberal supporter said...

I respect and follow Hunter's rule prohibiting ad hominem attacks on other commenters.

I agree with Belinda's comments. I do not agree with Hunter's misrepresentations. Claiming that pay equity is the law does not excuse the CPC from making it harder to make use of the law. Following her logic, we could abolish the police since we have laws against crime.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me, when did pay equity become "everyone gets the same pay"? We have equal pay for work of equal value. Who said secretaries and firefighters should be paid the same, besides the rhetoric in the post?

Bec said...

Right on Hunter! Identifying with Belinda Stronach, is an impossible task.
Likely, every day Canadian women, would be unable to tell us who she is, or what she does.

In fact, conservatives, would recall her resume' faster than other political parties, because she ran for the leadership.

It is the flip-flopping, career changes, that makes her position, lose credibility.

If she changed her job that often in a mainstream job market, her children most certainly, would have been the casualties.
It is not societies responsibility to finance the raising of a capable parents, child.

The needs of the poor is a different matter. Struggling families, no problem but we do that now. Universal daycare, is an abysmal idea and will never work.

Gabby in QC said...

I do not understand the rationale for "equal pay for work of equal value."

If there are gender-based differences in salaries within the same job description, OK, that indeed constitutes discrimination. A GP, a lawyer, a teacher, an administrative assistant - whatever job or profession - should be paid the same salary regardless of gender. The job should go to the best qualified person, not to the person who's the right gender, ethnic group, or right colour.

But to equate a fireman to an ambulance technician, for example, makes no sense to me at all. How is the "equal value" determined? Who judges that one job is equal in value to a completely different job? More to the point, can a society really ever reach complete egalitarianism? Is that even a desirable objective? No, IMO.

I can certainly agree with egalitarianism applying to people's civil rights, i.e. equality before the law; but when it comes to people's work, pay equity only serves to create needless tensions in certain industries.

However, regardless of how much I may disagree with the principle, the notion of "pay equity" is here to stay. Contrary to what the opposition MPs are saying, the Conservatives are NOT opposed to it, and are NOT trying to eliminate it.

As outlined in both the November 27 Fiscal Update and the Jan. 2009 Budget, the government simply wants to incorporate the principle of "pay equity" into the contract negotiation process, so that an employer or an employee would not have to go to court to settle the question in a long drawn-out court battle.

From the Jan. 27, 2009 Budget:
“The existing complaint-based pay equity regime is a lengthy, costly and adversarial process that does not serve employees or employers well. Legislation to modernize the pay equity regime for federal public sector employees will be introduced. The new regime reflects the Government’s commitment to pay equity. It will ensure that the employer and bargaining agents are jointly responsible and accountable for negotiating salaries that are fair and equitable to all employees.”

And from the Nov. 27 Economic and Fiscal update:
Modernizing Pay Equity
The current approach to pay equity is a litigious, adversarial, complaints-based approach. Under the current approach, the Government in its capacity as the employer first agrees on wage rates with the bargaining agents and then years later is forced to top up those very settlements through pay equity complaints. Since the mid-1980s the federal government has paid over $4 billion in pay equity settlements. New complaints continue to be filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, sometimes for the same groups that have already received past pay equity settlements, representing large potential future costs to taxpayers.

Therefore, the Government will introduce legislation to modernize the pay equity regime for federal public sector employees, similar to the process now in place in Ontario and some other provinces. The new regime reflects the Government's commitment to pay equity. The new regime ensures that the employer and bargaining agents are jointly responsible and accountable for negotiating salaries that are fair and equitable to all employees and that are in line with wages in the internal and external workforces.

As a result of the new legislation, pay equity considerations will now be addressed in a more proactive, open and transparent manner. Making pay equity an integral part of collective bargaining will increase fairness, eliminate lengthy litigation processes and ensure progress made by women in the public service is maintained over time.

The new pay equity regime will make employee compensation more predictable, improve government fiscal planning and eliminate unpredictable retroactive payments.”

As usual, the opponents of the Conservatives are playing politics, completely misrepresenting the Conservatives' position.

Bec said...

"But to equate a fireman to an ambulance technician, for example, makes no sense to me at all."

Besides that Gabby, those positions are unionized.
The argument proves itself right there with those examples.

Gabby in QC said...

Bec @ 6:23:00 PM: "Besides that Gabby, those positions are unionized."

And I'm sure the collective agreement specifies the salary scale depending on seniority and scolarity/training.

Although I disagree with the basic premise of pay equity, I think the government is right in incorporating it into the negotiating process in order to save money. Remember, according to the November Fiscal Update "the federal government has paid over $4 billion in pay equity settlements."

About 5 years ago, I and my work colleagues received a pay settlement that had finally wound its way through the courts, from the early 80s to the early 2000s.

Some of the people who were eligible for that settlement had died in the interim. Stretching out the litigation for so long makes no sense whatsoever, IMO. The only winners are the lawyers.

Anonymous said...

I'm all in favour of pay equity. Except my version of pay equity means equal pay for IDENTICAL work.

Spare me the whiney fluff of totally unrelated jobs being somehow equal in value in order to extort more pay for something other than one's abilities or on the job performance. That's nothing more than social engineering run wild.

A few years ago the flight attendants were twanging that pilots made so much more money than they did and they were just as important. Give me a break. Pushing the booze cart down the aisle hardly compares to shooting an ILS approach in fog and wind shear at the controls of a 100 million dollar aircraft, but I digress.....

I wonder if when I have grandchildren that THEY will ever see the day when it's back to regualr days of the week, the odd statutory holiday honoring a long dead queen and no days declared 'special' for the grievence group du jour.

Anonymous said...

Eskimo: or boyfriend and boyfriend or girlfriend and girlfriend. This is Canada and we are politically correct. LOL.