Why are we Surprised That Harper Has Turned Back the Clock on Women's Rights?

Laura Wood has an interesting op-ed piece on Rabble: Chipping away at gender equality: Harper's five-year round up.

She discusses his turning back the clock on women's rights, citing many of the measures taken to again subordinate our gender.

There are no arguments with her piece. However, as a nation we should not be at all surprised by this, if we had been following politics back in the Reform Party days.

Part of their policy was to put women back in the kitchen, where it was deemed they belonged. And they made no secret of it. In fact many men were drawn to the Reform movement because of it.

One of their founders, was William Gairdner and his book The Trouble with Canada, according to author and journalist Murray Dobbin, "functioned as ‘the de facto manifesto for the Reform Party’". He sold copies at Reform Party assemblies.

In 2007, Donna L. Lillian, then Assistant Professor of Discourse and Linguistics in the Department of English at East Carolina University, wrote her dissertation on sexist discourse as hate speech, and it was centred around William D. Gairdner. She writes:

In arguing that at least some sexist discourse should be considered hate speech, I first demonstrate that the popular discourse of Canadian neoconservative author William D. Gairdner is sexist.... Sexism, the ideology and practice of relegating women to a lower rung on the social hierarchy than men simply by virtue of their femaleness, is an integral component of neoconservative thinking, and one way that such sexism is produced and reproduced is through language.

To international readers, Canadian author William D. Gairdner may seem like an obscure and unlikely subject for an argument about hate speech. After all, there are many well-known commentators and public figures, particularly in the USA, whose writings might be considered sexist and whose names might be more recognizable internationally than Gairdner’s. In preparing this article, I have, in fact, read dozens of conservative books, articles, blogs, and websites, including some by prominent Americans admired and cited by Gairdner himself (e.g. George Gilder, Richard Viguerie, Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, inter alia). Gairdner shares many views with these commentators; however, his discourse style differs markedly from theirs. Whereas they temper their style, largely avoiding obviously inflammatory modes of expression, Gairdner revels in what he describes as his ‘tell it like it is’ style of writing. (1)

He never held back. I read The Trouble With Canada, and the way he speaks about women, or as he likes to refer to us, "radical feminists", made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. It was frightening.

And he was one of Stephen Harper's mentors.

Laura Wood in her Rabble piece also mentions the influence of the anti-women group, oddly named REAL Women of Canada. They were involved in the movement from the early days, and now brag about how often they are invited to Parliament Hill for their input.

Their president, Gwen Landholt, spoke of the "...takeover, by feminist ideology, of the judicial system in Canada, as well as its takeover of the UN. During the 60s, 70s and 80s, the radical feminist ideology was gradually instilled into the cultures of education, work, government and societal life."

"Feminist ideology"? Interesting. I remember a headline when I was in high school, announcing that women who were employed in banks, could now wear pants to work. However, they had to be pantsuits. Our school soon followed, allowing us to also wear slacks, but there were guidelines that were strictly enforced. No jeans, nothing too tight, etc.

We soon broke every rule. It was the late '60s. It's what we did.

But do we really want to go back to a time when we had to fight just to wear pants? For Stephen Harper and his neoconservatives, women's rights are seen as a threat to their masculinity. It is fundamental that they chip away at them, until they all come crashing down.

It took decades to accomplish what we have, and could take decades more just to go back to where we were five years ago. Canadian women have to stand up to this man, and we do that by exercising our hard fought for right to vote.

Sources:

1. A thorn by any other name: sexist discourse as hate speech, By Donna L. Lillian, Assistant Professor of Discourse and Linguistics East Carolina University, 2007

Everything Will Come Out in the W.A.S.H. (Women Against Stephen Harper)

Since first coming to power Stephen Harper has been launching an attack on Canadian women. From removing the word 'equality' from the Status of Women, to defunding programs, he's made it clear that he believes that we are second class citizens.

As Gerald Caplan wrote recently: The Harper government, women’s rights and the cost of speaking out.

It's been one of the glories of Canadian democracy that we have a tradition of government funding of citizens who might oppose some government policies. Most Canadians have come to see an active and engaged civil society as a crucial component of a robust democracy.

... As Amnesty's Alex Neve puts it: "We are not a nation founded or built on some sense of orthodoxy, ideology and conformity. We are a nation of diversity and debate." Alas, we need to change that tense. We were that kind of nation, a liberal or tolerant nation. Which is reason enough for the Harper government to go to war against this democratic principle and to introduce a new kind of punishment politics for those who fail to toe the government line. Dissent from that line is being squashed, or at least dissenters are being intimidated by the fear of losing their funding. You can disagree, but you pay the price.

This is no abstract threat. It's already happening. NGO funding is already being cut for daring to differ with the government. It happened to Kairos, a church-backed humanitarian NGO that worked with Palestinian civil society.

So there is a new group Women Against Stephen Harper, that is a fun place to share stories and ideas. We fought too hard for women's rights, and I'll be damned if he's going to simply squash them on a whim.

Just who does he think he is?

Vic Toews Archaic Views on Rape Reflect Government's Narrow Minded Agenda

The Canadian Press has learned that Vic Toews tried to abolish the broad definition of sexual assault, calling it the "biggest mistake in criminal law ever made."

By replacing it with "rape" would take us back decades.

Catherine Kane, who's in charge of the criminal law policy section at Justice, jumped to the defence of the current law, internal documents show. “We have several offences that cover the conduct previously captured by the very narrow and impossible to convict of charge of rape,” she wrote in a late-night email on May 11, the same day Toews made controversial public comments on the issue. “And we have several offences to cover the equally harmful sexual offences that fell short of the offence of rape.”

I do like this comment from Rob Nicholson though:

“The government currently has an ambitious justice agenda and we are committed to pursuing it. However, in regards to your question (about rape), there is nothing currently in the works.”

"Ambitious justice agenda" ... yes. "Committed to pursuing it" ... yes. The need for it ... not on your life.

In what has turned into a rite of summer in recent years, Statistics Canada has released data that again suggests the crime rate in the country continues to fall. The annual police-reported crime statistics issued yesterday indicated drops in overall crimes, motor vehicle thefts and even violent offences. The crime rate in the country in 2009 was 17% lower than a decade earlier. A relatively new indicator, the Crime Severity Index, which is a weighted average of criminal offences, is down 22% from the level in 1999.

Going through with massive corporate tax cuts when this country has so much poverty, our health care is in crisis and our veterans are being treated like dogs ... That's the real crime that needs to be addressed.

A Little Less Anger and a Lot More Journalism From Sun Media? Can't Be Done

I can't help but notice that Sun Media has begun to test the waters. How mush racism will we endure? How many attacks on women, minorities and non-neoconservative politicians will infest the newspapers and eventually the airwaves, before we just shut it off?

What passes for journalism with Sun these days is barely more intelligent than a schoolyard spitting contest.

Journalists are supposed to chronicle history, not fabricate it. But if this is the chronicling of our history, what will future generations of Canadians think of us? I shudder to think.

David McGuinty responded to a scathing attack on Michael Ignatieff, but I could have told him not to bother. As my mother used to say: "save your breath to cool your soup."

They are not media now, they are entertainment of the worst kind.

The best progressives can do is ignore them. As David says:

Where the Conservatives want to build more prisons, Liberals want to help more kids go to college.

Where the current government wants to add another $6 billion in corporate tax cuts to their record $54-billion deficit, a future Liberal government wants to reduce the deficit and help caregivers care for loved ones at home.

Where Stephen Harper’s foreign policy amounts to a billion-dollar G20 photo-op, Ignatieff is building relationships with new markets so we can sell Canadian goods and ideas to the world.

Harper has done everything in his power to bring politics to its lowest common denominator. Canadians don’t like his style of government, with its manipulation, secrecy and disrespect for Parliament. Compared to them, Ignatieff is presenting a progressive, compassionate and responsible alternative.

But Sun media doesn't have to endorse the bus tour. In fact, I'd be worried if they did. Their job is just to remind Canadians where Stephen Harper comes from and so far they are doing that in spades.

For me ... I've got a bus to catch. Lunch with Michael Ignatieff tomorrow.

And to Sun Media. This is what real journalism is:

Helena Guergis Encourages Staff to Lie For Her

In an attempt to change public opinion, Helena Guergis, the minister of putting women back in the kitchen; has had her staff (technically our staff, since we pay their salary) write letters to the editor on her behalf.

Now there's nothing wrong with her staff writing letters, but they must identify themselves as her staff.

A long-time spokesperson of Minister Helena Guergis insists there was no conflict of interest when she wrote a glowing letter to Maclean’s about her
boss—but failed to identify herself as the MP’s employee.

Knight’s stunt coincides with a similar incident: earlier Tuesday, another Guergis staffer, Jessica Craven, was caught sending flattering letters about the minister to Ontario newspapers using her married name, Morgan. She has apologized, and insists Guergis had no idea. The minister has since spoken out, calling these letters “inappropriate.”

Naturally she's denying that she was aware, but c'mon. Just how stupid do you think we are Helena?

Do you think we're all as stupid as .... ah, never mind. She's not worth it.

Stephen Harper Cares About Women's Rights? What a Hoot!

So our newly enlightened dictator came down from the mountain to cast his pearls of wisdom upon the bewildered herd.

Stepping out of the mist in a vision that silenced the ignorant masses of the chattering class, he announced that he was now going to focus on the rights of women and children.

OK .... You really need to stop laughing now, or I'm not going to tell you the rest.

Besides I think he also plans to tell us that he's found a cure for cancer and is now devoted to world peace. Maybe eventually something will stick.

Of course it's all bunk, and a new pamphlet distributed by The National Union of Public and General Employees, paints an entirely different picture.

Women, Stephen Harper and the Economic Crisis

The lack of an early childhood education and child care program, the inequities that exist for women in the Employment Insurance (EI) program and the pay gap between women and men have left Canadian women struggling long before the economic recession began. The Conservative government’s Federal Budget 2009 which was to respond to the economic crisis provided no support for women.

The economic stimulus provided billions of dollars into physical infrastructure projects and construction programs which are male dominated industries. It did not, however, put money into social infrastructures such as child care, health care and community-based social services which are female dominated industries.

It is harder for women to accumulate the number of hours to qualify for EI as they are more likely to work part-time, non-standard hours and have extended periods of time away from the workforce to handle family responsibilities. The extension of five weeks of EI benefits does not help women who cannot quality for benefits to begin with.

The Federal Budget did not provide or improve access to affordable child care which is essential in order for women to seek employment or retrain. For female single parents, many of whom are poor and cannot afford child care fees, a universal early education and child care program is imperative.

However, Antonia Zerbisias tells us what this is really about:

Harper's plan helps women only as baby-makers

Tuesday, on the Star's op-ed page, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that he would "mobilize" world leaders to save the lives of women and children around the world. "As president of the G8 in 2010," he wrote, "Canada will champion a major initiative to improve the health of women and children in the world's poorest regions."

He had figures:

"Each year, it is estimated that 500,000 women lose their lives during pregnancy or childbirth. Further, an astonishing 9 million children die before their fifth birthday."

But as Zerbisias reminds us: "According to the same sources, some 70,000 women a year die from botched illegal abortions."

The problem of course is that Stephen Harper has never been a champion of women's rights; so what's really going on? I guess we'll have to wait and see. But if safe abortions, education and protection from violence, are not on the agenda, what hope is there?

And remember, he rewrote our foreign policy to exclude the protection of women and children from rape and sexual exploitation, by not allowing humanitarian aid workers to speak of such things in their reports.

But Harper didn't mention anything about women getting educations or achieving economic parity. As internationally known human rights activist Stephen Lewis told me Wednesday night, "None of the spectrum of women's rights and issues is encompassed in this announcement. It doesn't include sexual violence, child marriage, sexual trafficking, female genital mutilation, economic autonomy, political representation, land rights or inheritance rights. It includes none of the panoply of women's issues which consign women to subordinate positions around the world."

She could be right. Women may be reduced to the role of baby makers. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Is Thomas the Tank Engine Trying to Indoctrinate Children?

There's kind of an interesting story about the children's show Thomas the Tank Engine, that many will dismiss; but I think deserves at least a bit of discussion.

A political scientist from the University of Alberta, has studied the program and found that it promoted a Conservative ideology. Was that the shows intent? Did it's creator have an agenda?

I don't think so.

First off the program was based on a series of books written by a pastor in the 1940's. Therefore, the characters are more reflective of that era. When producer Britt Allcroft first brought Thomas to the TV screen in 1979, she tried to capture the innocence and magic that inspired her, after reading the books.

She herself is a strong female role model, and though she ultimately lost the company she helped to create, she is still an astute businesswoman.

But that doesn't mean that Shauna Wilton is wrong. We do have to be careful about what our children are watching, and be ready to counter or discuss what messages they may be getting, even if unintentional.

Study: Thomas pushing conservatism
December 12, 2009
Reuters
OH THOMAS: A Canadian researcher claims Thomas the Tank Engine pushes a 'conservative political ideology' on to kids.

A researcher has blown the whistle on Thomas the Tank Engine, saying the classic series was pushing "conservative political ideology" on to kids.

Storylines written for Thomas and his steam-powered friends appeared to "punish individual initiative", the Canadian study found, while female characters were shunted into support roles only.

Political scientist Shauna Wilton, who is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Sciences at University of Alberta's Augustana Campus, said parents should be more mindful of children's programming.

It played a major role in shaping a child's conception of the world and in the case of Thomas the Tank Engine, it was not always constructive.

Dr Wilton said the show conveyed a number of positive political values such as tolerance, listening, communicating with others and contributing to the community.

"It also represents a conservative political ideology that punishes individual initiative, opposes critique and change, and relegates females to supportive roles," she said.

Dr Wilton analysed 23 episodes of the model train-based series, which is shown in 130 countries. She said there were storylines in several episodes that divided the characters into different social classes and punished those who tried to gain individual power.

"Any change is seen as disrupting the natural order of things," she said.

Of the 49 main characters listed in the show, only eight were female and Dr Wilton said this reflected a general bias towards male characters across all of children's programming.

"We tend to think of children's TV shows as neutral and safe but they still carry messages," she said.

"Eventually, these children will attain full political citizenship and the opinions and world outlook they develop now, partially influenced by shows like Thomas and Friends, are part of that process."

Australia's Professor Sue Grieshaber said children gained the ability to think about the subtle messages contained in programming, like Thomas the Tank Engine, from about age four or five.

She said that in this case, Thomas' storylines may have been written years ago and they could reflect views from "a bygone era".

Parents and teachers should point these cases out to children where they saw them, said Prof Grieshaber who is Professor of Early Years Education at the Queensland University of Technology.

"You can point things out to children and say why are all the people in the Thomas story males? Can you name any female engines?" she said.

"Or what sort of roles did the females have? Four- or five-year-old children can think about these issues if you point them out."

----------------

What comes to mind for me was a show called 227, starring Marla Gibbs, who had played the Jefferson's feisty maid. It was based on a play that was set in the 1950's, but was supposed to have been made more contemporary.

I remember watching an episode with my daughter, who was about 9 or 10 at the time, and Gibb's character Mary Jenkins, suddenly shot up and stated that she had to get upstairs because her construction worker husband Lester would be home soon and expected his dinner on the table.

My first impulse was to cover my daughter's ears, but I realized that was silly. Instead I joked about it, but starting paying more attention to the message. The main female characters were a gossipy housewife and a slut. We never watched the show again.

Sexism is Alive and Well in the Conservative Party and Jacques Gourde Proves It

There are many reasons to dislike Conservative MP Jacques Gourde. He's dishonest and rude. But his sexist remarks in the House of Commons, were a little over the top.

Mind you, he's not really unlike most of the men in the Conservative caucus, while the women in the party just smile and pretend not to notice. Though in the case of Helena Guergis, I don't think she does.

Harper’s Conservatives want women to stay home and be quiet. . . We refuse!

Kudos to Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) who stood in the House of Commons to declare her outrage at sexist comments made by a Tory MP Jacques Gourde:

"Mr. Speaker, Quebec members from the Conservative Party have repeatedly stated in this House that the Bloc is useless in Ottawa. Well, not only is the Bloc Québécois useful, but you will never hear one of us speak as crudely as the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière did at the May 7 meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

The member (Jacques Gourde) said: "Often, a father will give his son advice on how to select a heating system. That is not usually something a mother discusses with her daughter; a mother is more likely to advise her daughter on what curtains to pick. That is the reality. It may be sexist, but that is the reality." (What curtains to pick. Is he kidding me?)

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is sexist. After all, your remarks simply reflect the opinion this government has of women, as evidenced by the cuts to Status of Women, the new criteria for the women's program, and the elimination of the court challenges program.

Back to: The Jacques Gourde Story: He Does Better at Pantomime