The "Women As Victims" Department Of The Canadian Government
I like this columnist, Candice Malcolm, whose views are similar to mine, both on what feminism's become and how ridiculous (and insulting) it is to have departments of government especially for women.
As I sometimes write here, feminism today is too often about demanding special rights under the guise of equal rights and demanding that women be treated as eggshells, not equals.
Malcolm writes in the Toronto Sun about Maryam Monsef, removed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as Democratic Institutions Minister and shuffled to the lower-profile position of Minister for the Status of Women:
After a run of bad publicity and countless unanswered questions about her mysterious past, Monsef was demoted to the position of Canada's official government feminist.When it came to firing one of the worst performing members of his cabinet, Trudeau - the avowed feminist - put Monsef in charge of the 'Status of Women,' a junior portfolio inside the Ministry of Canadian Heritage.
While hypocritical, it's also rather fitting. The Status of Women ministry is as unnecessary in Canada as Monsef is in cabinet.
The idea that Canadian women need a special government agency is both demeaning, pejorative and, frankly, out of date and out of touch.
Canadian women are not victims in need of special government assistance. We don't have a single set of issues that require subsidies and handouts from the feds. And we certainly don't need a department of professional feminists telling us which issues are "ours."
Feminism has lost touch with promoting equality, and instead often focuses on undermining men and attacking traditional societal roles.
Besides, the major issues within Status of Women - domestic abuse and missing and murdered aboriginals - are issues relating to crime and security, both already under the purview of the Department of Public Safety.
These issues also [affect] men, and it's wrong and unhelpful to exclude half the population in dealing with societal problems.
I also refuse to join any feminist science societies, and my idea of a "safe space" is one that's safe for free speech -- even that of vigorous assholes.
RELATED: "Male privilege"? "Airport shooting survivor shielded stranger from gunfire." A man threw his body over a woman's, endangering his own life to protect that of a total stranger.
via @SocialTheoryCan
That's because feminism never had anything to do with equality. Nor did it have anything to do with women per se. Feminism is a vehicle for Marxism - full stop.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/240037/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives-mallory-millett
Lastango at January 13, 2017 11:37 PM
Good lord, talk about screechy hysteria. (On the part of Mallory Millet, that is.)
From that link:
"I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they'll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back. 'Where are my children? Where are my grandchildren?' they cry to me."
It's interesting that only diehard conservatives and full-time anti-abortionists ever seem to make claims like that. Pretty much everyone else will agree - if grudgingly - that the vast majority of childfree people are content with their decision and are quite capable of finding substitute "grandchildren" to play with and send home at the end of the day, and that most childLESS people tried but couldn't find a reasonably good person to marry, and/or didn't like the idea of adoption or single parenthood.
Not to mention that while no woman enjoys getting an abortion, no matter how early it's done, the vast majority of the women who have them get over it pretty soon - and have children later IF they want them! What's much harder to live down, from all accounts, is giving up a child for adoption, which is why any single woman who gives birth nowadays typically does not do so.
lenona at January 14, 2017 7:47 AM
Oh, yes - and it's been pointed out more than once that if anyone's helped to destigmatize single motherhood, it's the anti-abortionists.
lenona at January 14, 2017 7:50 AM
This could be just half the move. They wait for Maryam Monsef to move on/retire, then merge the department into the Commission on Human Rights. The problem fades away. See how that preserves the social fabric?
Canvasback at January 14, 2017 9:07 AM
"A man threw his body over a woman's, endangering his own life to protect that of a total stranger." He told her, "I will protect you."
His wife, Jennifer, was at the airport with him.
"At one point, he thought Jennifer had died. There was someone on the ground next to her with so much blood. Jennifer was on the ground curled up in the fetal position. When Dad went to her, she wouldn’t get up. He thought the blood was hers.”
I wonder how he decided which woman to protect.
Ken R at January 14, 2017 1:10 PM
Oh, re being childless - I forgot what may be the BIGGEST factor - poverty. Especially when it comes to would-be adoptive parents. As Dan Savage said, unlike God, the state won't give a baby to just anyone.
lenona at January 14, 2017 1:50 PM
Trudeau is a moron with a cabinet of morons. Monsef is just his latest idiocy.
Wtf at January 14, 2017 9:02 PM
Leave a comment