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

Pro-Sex Feminists and a Feminized Curriculum are to Blame for Everything

We learned this week that Canada has slipped to 25th place in terms of gender equality,
most of that decline during the four years that the Harper government has been in power.

Much of that can be blamed on the anti-women movement REAL Women of Canada, and other faith based organizations, now driving the Conservative machine.

David Sweet, Reform-Conservative MP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, is the founder of the Canadian branch of Promise Keepers, an organization that promotes male dominated households.

The National Organization for Women, an American feminist group has suggested that the Promise Keepers are a threat to women's rights:

The group encourages inequality within marriages and teaches a doctrine of male superiority. According to Amy Schindler, "the discourse of masculinity found within conservative religious movements, such as the Promise Keepers and the Victorian era movement 'muscular Christianity,' is inherently political. Any masculinity project aimed at restoring or reclaiming a 'traditional' male role for privileged white, heterosexual males has a political impact within the tapestry of class, race, and gender power."

This organization was founded by former football coach Bill McCartney, and according to the Canadian Encyclopedia:

A coalition of liberal clergy called Equal Partners in Faith condemns it as "divisive and potentially dangerous." And a New York City-based group called the Center for Democracy Studies warns that Promise Keepers is nothing less than the "third wave" of the religious right - after Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition. Alfred Ross, the centre’s executive director, points to close ties between Promise Keepers and such luminaries of the American religious right as Robertson and James Dobson of Focus on the Family as proof that McCartney’s movement is no spontaneous eruption.

James Dobson is one of the founders of the Council for National Policy, where Stephen Harper delivered his 'I really Canadians' speech in 1997, and was integral in the election of Harper in 2006, by buying radio ads against same-sex marriage; one of the hot button issues of the campaign.

Reformers Rob Anders, Maurice Vellacott and David Sweet are also members of Focus on Family, along with a large number of their colleagues.

One of the things that PK preaches is purity in men, much like the group that Stephen Woodworth promotes; Parliamentary Friends of Falun Gong. Both Jason Kenney and Rob Anders claim to be virgins, though I'm not really sure that's by choice.

Any of us who have been following politics at all, since the Reform movement first began in Canada, are not really surprised by the results of the study. This party has always been very patriarchal, pro-Anglo and Christian fundamentalist.

One of their mentors and co-founder with Stephen Harper of a right-wing extremist group, the Northern Foundation, William Gairdner; always had some very disturbing views on women.

In fact, in 2007, Donna L. Lillian, Assistant Professor of Discourse and Linguistics in the Department of English at East Carolina University, wrote a paper entitled: A thorn by any other name: sexist discourse as hate speech, which centered around Gairdner: "...analyzing Canadian neoconservative discourse as racist, sexist, and homophobic." According to author and journalist Murray Dobbin, Mr. Gairdner's The Trouble with Canada functioned as ‘the de facto manifesto for Preston Manning’s Reform Party’ (Dobbin, 1992: 134).

Another co-founder of the Northern Foundation was Link Byfield, who has spoken at REAL Women conferences. In a 2002 lecture he stated: "Women, men and families must be defended against those forces that enslave us as we speak. That's why it is necessary for REAL Women to exist and to persist in its work on behalf of the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and family life."

At that same conference, Jeffrey Asher, former Professor at Dawson College in Montreal, opened by saying:

The so-called New Male is a creation of classroom radical feminism, media hype and politically correct governments. For more than thirty years, our culture has rigorously censored information which shows that males and females choose and need sex-specific roles in life. Every parent knows that girls and boys behave differently. Boys choose to play noisy, competitive games that test one against the other, while girls prefer co-operative fantasies that develop emotional skills.

Co-operative fantasies that develop emotional skills? Wow. But wait, he's just getting started:

Men and women respond very differently to stimuli. The male alarm system is more protected from fear and panic. The male brain needs more stimulation than those of females ... Girls show more success in artistic, emotional, verbal and communicative subjects ... Men have superior vision compared to women. Almost all mechanical, chemical, electronic and cybernetic inventions were made by men ... .However, the lives of women have been transformed by independent work and income and the pill, allowing them freedom to choose motherhood and financial independence from fathers or husbands ... [and] can also lead to an increase in divorce, an epidemic of single-mother families, and rising unemployment for men. (Men define their lives by their ability to earn money through work to support a family.)

And he taught this crap at Dawson College, while claiming that by 1980, the women's movement was increasingly co-opted by the lunatic fringe.

The President of REAL Women, Gwen Landolt, also spoke in 2002, where she:

"... highlighted 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.

Gwen traced the growth of feminism in Canada back to the Royal Commission Report on the Status of Women, which was tabled in the House of Commons in February 1970. It called for both federal and provincial governments to establish and fund Status of Women Councils to work for the "equality of women." This recommendation led to millions of dollars of tax monies being used to establish networks of women's groups across the country. These groups became paid "agents of change" to promulgate feminist orthodoxy.

So do you see what we're up against?

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Roots of Reform, Stephen Harper and the Stepford Wives

From the days of the Social Credit Party, to Reform, to Alliance, and finally the Conservative Party of Canada; there has been a common theme: A woman's place.

When Reform Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz was quoted as saying: "We should try to keep our mothers in the home and that is where the whole Reform platform hangs together", it was not an isolated comment and only a very small glimpse at their ideology and the roles of women.

Yes I know that Harper stacked his cabinet with females, but he'll do anything to keep his job, so it's irrelevant. Most of his caucus are mere window dressing anyway, since they are not allowed to talk without a script from the PMO.

But the roots of this patriarchal belief run deep, and begin with the Manning family. Ernest, the long-time Social Credit premier of Alberta and his son Preston, leader of the Reform Party.

In his book, Preston Manning and the Reform Party of Canada, Murray Dobbin discusses this.

"Preston Manning's church, the First Alliance in Calgary, is a member church of the Christian and Missionary Alliance of Canada. (Stephen Harper's Church). The 1990 edition of it's manual sets out it's constitution, bylaws, policies, regulations, and statements on marriage and divorce, and the role of women. As an evangelical church, it adheres to the doctrine of "enerrancy - that is, the Bible is correct in all details and cannot be deviated from.

"Two other areas of church doctrine are worth noting. The role of women in the church is subordinate to men and is dictated by the Bible: 'Christ is the head of every man and the man is the head of every woman and God is the head of Christ' In the church and elsewhere, 'It is recognized that equality and submission can be compatible as seen in Jesus Christ. There is no inferiority implied in submission ... in the man-woman relationship.' (Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 11)

Reform Conservative David Sweet and his group, the Promise Keepers, use the same flawed logic. PK is a male dominated, testosterone driven organization that tells it's followers not to ask for leadership in the family, but to take it.

Once in interview with Christian Week, David Sweet himself said, "Men are natural influencers, whether we like it or not. There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only."

They held a 'Living a Legacy' campaign across North America, and one woman made the following observations about the Promise Keepers:

1. They were Evangelical Christians "who believed the Bible to be the inerrant literal word of God". (Just like Preston Manning and Stephen Harper's Church as mentioned)
2. They were men who "believed in well defined gender roles..."
3. There were no gray areas, only what they perceived as absolute truths. (You can hear Reform Party mentor William Gairdner discuss absolutes in this video)
4. They were men uncomfortable with their sexuality and needed their "maleness" affirmed.
5. They were card carrying members of the anti-Christian Religious Right movement.
6. Each speaker at the rally had to "sign a pledge that the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God".

One speaker said "I am the head of the family, my wife is the neck." Another said, "Don't be spiritual cross-dressers, wearing the pants one day and the skirt the next."

"Throughout the entire event, I kept hearing about what it meant to be a 'man's man', a 'godly man', or a 'real man', and it certainly had nothing to do with equality of the genders or acceptance of sexual minorities."

Murray Dobbin goes into a bit more detail in a section entitled 'Women's Issues'.

"In November, 1990 a task force on women's issues headed by Sandra Manning, wife of the party leader, concluded that there were no distinctly women's issues. Diane Ablonczy, at the time national chairperson of the Reform Party, was quoted in Alberta Report as saying 'the work group came to the consensus that women's issues should subsequently be considered social and family issues'.

"Reform leaders have shown considerable hostility to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC), an umbrella group that works on women's issues. Stan Waters repeatedly singled out the organization as typical of interest groups whose government funding should be cut. (One of the first things Stephen Harper did when elected was to cut their funding and remove the word "equality" from their mandate) Deborah Grey, answered a request from NAC for the party's position on women's issues by saying that the Reform Party refuses to appeal to interest groups so 'we will not be responding to the question'.

"The issues that NAC sought a position on included violence against women, equal pay for work of equal value, and provisions to prevent discrimination against women. Although these issues have implications for society in general, they obviously do have a more direct impact on the lives of women. In coming to the conclusion that there were no issues that are specifically women's issues, the Reform Party's women's work group made a political statement on the significance of the concerns raised by groups like the National Action Committee. (Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 165-166)

Author Trevor Harrison describes it a little differently:

"In November 1990 Reform assembled a 'women's work group' to examine such issues as employment and pay equity, family violence, and women's health care. Shortly thereafter, however, a number of party supporters, including several with strong ties to REAL Women, declared their objection to both study materials being used for discussion and what they viewed as a typically feminist construction of specifically "women's problems.' Stated Mary Lamont, a founding member of both REAL women and the Reform Party:

"'I've been involved in the Reform Party from the start and I've always thought of it as a strong conservative party. I thought it stood for a different approach. I expected it to do more on these family issues than give us feminist slogans, attitudes and agendas. The feminists get enough attention from other parties.'

Under pressure, the controversial women's group folded." (Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. Author: Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, pg. 213)

And then of course there's William Gairdner, another Reform Party mentor. Donna L. Lillian, Assistant Professor of Discourse and Linguistics East Carolina University, wrote a paper entitled: A thorn by any other name: sexist discourse as hate speech, which centered around Gairdner. Ms Lillian spent several years "...analyzing Canadian neoconservative discourse as racist, sexist, and homophobic." Murray Dobbin also discusses this:

"Gairdner (speaking at the 1991 Reform Party's Assembly) went on to attack the whole concept of human rights and the funding of advocacy groups that 'compete for government funding to get these rights.' The attack on the 'rights illusion' brought applause, but his attack on feminists brought a roar of approval: 'Furthermore ... we fund ... radical feminist groups all over the country .... (extended applause) ... that publicly support social revolution ... of the most Utopian kind and they vow to abolish the traditional family.'

"Again, going after women and women's rights, Gairdner suggested to more loud applause, that Canada 'throw the Charter (of Rights and Freedoms) out and return to our common law heritage. ... Women get special treatment but men do not (loud boos)" (Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 165-166)

Harper's disdain for women's rights run deep through his Church and Reform Party roots. This gives us some idea of what to expect from a Harper Majority.