Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The "Pink Book" screams VICTIM.

I am thankful that no-one was hurt during the hostage taking in Edmonton. I can't imagine how frightened the hostages were. I also have a certain amount of sympathy for the guy who took them hostage (look at his picture at the above link, he has very sad eyes, not the eyes of a killer). He was living in an assisted living apartment, so he obviously had some medical problem that qualified him for that assistance. The system is broken. The people who need our help the most, are forgotten.

That leads me into a discussion of the "pink book". The "pink book" has exposed a huge problem, with Liberals. They do not understand women. While the Liberals were busy releasing their third version of the "pink book", making women everywhere in Canada, into second class citizens, real people in need are forgotten.

I would like to see Minna Mouse get out and actually help a woman with an abusive husband. I bet she has room in her home for one family in need. Unfortunately, that's not what the "pink book" is about, it's about making women into victims. The weaker sex. The "pink book" is disgusting to any strong willed, self supporting woman.

It tells women who are raising their children on their own that they are inferior. Only working women count and they get paid less than an engineer, so that is unfair. Let me see if I get this feminist view right, a secretary should get paid as much as an engineer. That's why they quote the 75% number. It is total BS. Ladies, go to university/college and you too can get the same salary as men in your field. It's just that simple.

The "pink book" makes victims not friends.

12 comments:

L said...

Reading the pink book made my blood boil! What a egregious use of unqualified data (that ignors geographical cost-of-living differences and lifestyle choices) to create abysmal, centralized policies, for the most part! (There are a few good ideas, but the book is advocacy at its worst).

Mostly, the pink book advocates handing abused and so-called abused women over to the federal nanny state for life. The pink book fails to mention that women are now over-represented in many fields at university and gives, as you say NO credit to women who want to take a break to raise their own children or who choose the mommy-track in a career (a best choice, in my opinion). I did and would do it again. Now, I am a "have", but those years of living frugally on one income paid off in more ways than one. This bunch would like to take MY retirement savings and give it to people who did not want to save for a rainy day or who did not work on their marriage relationships.

All of my Canadian grannies, great grannies and up to third great grannies who lived below the tax-credited poverty line (and those who did not) would be appalled. None of these proud and successful women would have asked for or willingly paid for any handout programs. They fought for the right to vote, but not for handouts!

They would happily put my entrepreneurial cousin out-of-work because she successfully runs a respected daycare operation in a small town. Her qualifications are that she raised 4 children with a grade 10 education sans husband and she is now amazingly good at organizing fun and educational activities for the children for whom she is trusted to care for. One does not need to be credentialled and unionized to be a good daycare operator.

Conservative must make sure that statistics do not create bad policies. The fact that women are choosing to balance careers and family is to be celebrated! Being technically "under-the-poverty line" while raising small children suggests that we do have programs that support. Stats Can needs to be de-politicized and do better studies.

The comments on women immigrants/ refugees are noteworthy and do call for a review of Immigration and Refugee Policy, which I identify as our #1 priority, even bigger than the economy.

Southern Quebec said...

"Her qualifications are that she raised 4 children with a grade 10 education sans husband and she is now..."

I don't think being an uneducated single mom really qualifies some one for to be a daycare operator. This is not to say they couldn't look after a few kids in their home...

maryT said...

In many small towns it is these women who provide the only daycare available. I think there are more educated women who never went to university, who went to the school of hard knocks, than those who did go, got union jobs and ruined our education system with their feminist ideas, and women are victims crap.
I would assume the woman referred to in L's post lost her husband, and had to make a living. SQ's attempt to turn her into something else is shameful.

mystereeoso said...

On what page of the Pink Book will I find the 75% number and the part where it says women raising their children on their own are inferior? Where does it say "Only working women count and they get paid less than an engineer, so that is unfair."

wilson said...

I didn't read the lastest Liberal b.s.
Was there any reference to
-Dead beat Dad's
-Native Women's rights to own property

Single Mom's WANT to keep their children and know very well going in, it will be a physical, emotional, and financial struggle.

Hardly the weaker sex, no?

wilson said...

Also, only 14% of children under 6 are placed in public daycare.
Women CHOOSE to stay home for those years, and CHOOSE to have reduced income,
to do the most important job (unpaid) that there is on this planet.

That's why the $100 beer and popcorn money was such a hit.

Went to awards night for niece, last night.
Principal (women) said 'we spend more time with your kids than some of you do',
I still want to slap her.
But that is the arrogance of the Liberal.

wilson said...

Good article here:
''As for caregiving: Yes, women do more caregiving of those they love and in whose wellbeing they are highly invested. That’s to say there is personal reward in the sacrifice. And men do more fighting and dying in Afghanistan and saving people in burning buildings and slogging through crap in sewers for people they don’t even know, but somehow we don’t hear so much about those crummy jobs whose only reward is honour fulfilled and pride in supporting one’s family.''


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/22/barbara-kay-the-pink-book.aspx

liberal supporter said...

Funny how you can segue from your sexist sneering because I asked why your day in the life does not include bathing, to this claiming women like second class status.

Somehow giving everyone equal opportunity is wrong. You forgot to call it communist.

liberal supporter said...

By the way, since you obviously didn't get it, asking why you don't bathe was a jest, you know, gentle ribbing? Teasing?

Just like your Friday funny, where we have a whole list of these:
"If a conservative sees _____, he (does something reasonable).
If a liberal sees ____, he (does something silly and laughable)."

I could see that was just teasing, yet you now have no sense of humour when I tease you?

Funny that. And predictable.

Southern Quebec said...

"As for caregiving: Yes, women do more caregiving of those they love and in whose wellbeing they are highly invested. That’s to say there is personal reward in the sacrifice. And men do more fighting and dying in Afghanistan and saving people in burning buildings and slogging through crap in sewers for people they don’t even know, but somehow we don’t hear so much about those crummy jobs whose only reward is honour fulfilled and pride in supporting one’s family.''"

Willy: Most women do not choose to do the caregiving thing -- it is dumped on them.

As to the other crummy jobs, THEY are well paid. Strange that most of those good paying jobs are male dominated...

Southern Quebec said...

MaryT: If L's cousin were "lost", she would have said so...or made it up.

Kunoichi said...

"I don't think being an uneducated single mom really qualifies some one for to be a daycare operator. "

Do not confuse schooling with education.