It's about fucking time you wrote something conservative. Write, like, a hundred consecutive posts like this without whining about "death threats" from invalids like Robert McClelland and Deb Fricsh and people might stop referring to you as a "fucking pussy"!

OK, that was mean. Here, I'll make a smiley face so I don't hurt your precious feelings, ready?

":-)"

Posted by: VRWC at August 22, 2006 05:36 PM

---

I'd be more interested in weeding out the radical feminist professors in our universities.

Posted by: TheDiggler at August 22, 2006 05:48 PM

---

Bet you a beer that first comment was from the Word Wanker herself.

Posted by: Chris Taylor at August 22, 2006 05:55 PM

---

As a female, I believe this useless organization should not get any funding, if they want to survive, they should raise their own funds! I'm tired of organizations that do represent me being given government funding. This money would be better spent on the disabled!

Posted by: Hunter at August 22, 2006 06:15 PM

---

Not only did the radical feminists, aka the Status of Women (SOW), start a "counter campaign" to REAL Women, they did something really stupid to show, of course, their true colours.

REAL Women thought to get a grant from SOW to help fund a conference they were having (seeing as all the other women's, aka, radical feminists', groups in Canada had been funded for years). They wrote to SOW and asked for an application form. They heard nothing. Members phoned to ask if their letter had been received and could they please have an application. They were told that REAL Women (Realistic, Equal, and Active for Life) was not an organization that promoted the equality of women. REAL Women begged to differ.

When it became clear that SOW was not going to send an application to REAL Women, whose members were equally Canadian and equally women--all faiths and no faiths, women who worked outside the home and women who worked inside the home, women whose children were in daycare and women who had stay-at-home kids--REAL's president Gwen Landolt, a lawyer, made up her mind that REAL WOULD get an application.

Landolt had one of her children, who was computer savvy, make up a letterhead: Lesbian Mothers of Canada, and wrote asking for an application. By return mail, she had an application in hand with a gushing letter: "Welcome to the world of government funding! If there is anything we can do to help you, please let us know."

Gwen Landolt filled out the application in REAL Women's name and sent it in. Then the sh** hit the fan. David Crombie, who was the Minister in charge of women's affairs had to make a profuse apology to REAL Women and, I suspect, had some fairly harsh words for the SOWs. REAL Women did get a grant: a measly $43,0000 compared to grants given to other “women’s “ groups.

Unfortunately, despite their being outed as the bigoted, one-sided, mean, lesbian-positive, biased, intolerant, not-exactly-open-or-tolerant-or diverse banshees they were/are, successive governments have continued to fund their nefarious projects.

Except for a thoroughly researched and articulate article in Saturday Night by Danielle Crittendon (we're talking somewhere around 1985), Canadians would know nothing about SOW’s lopsided, UNEQUAL, and unfair agenda--or the by now millions of government dollars (that's our money, folks) this organization has used to fund its very narrow initiatives, usually having nothing to do with issues that the majority of Canadian women have an interest in.

’Any wonder that Canadian families have had so little support from the Canadian government over the years? Universal, government-funded daycare is the only option SOW favours when it comes to caring for our kids, and they have been vociferous advocates of that model while ferociously opposing any other form of child care. This is ironic as they say they favour “equality� for women, which would obviously mean choice for families when it comes to caring for their children.

SOW has never been for equality for women. Their aim is female supremacy.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 22, 2006 06:35 PM

---

From what I know, REAL Women has remained solvent for nearly 30 years, virtually all on donations from its members, something the feminazis, who milk the public teat, could never do.

REAL Women has used Access to Information legislation to find out just what the feminists do with millions of government $$ each year. Maybe REAL's website has some information on this. It's fascinating--and ridiculous! Certainly, a lot of the $$ goes to fund the Court Challenges Program, a nice little slush fund, protected from Parliamentary scrutiny, I believe, to pay for the feminists' Supreme Court challenges. REAL Women intervenes in cases too--all on their own dime. Equality, my foot.

If Canadians knew the utter waste of their $$ through the Status of Women (sic)--it should read "Status of Radical Feminists"--they'd be darn angry.

P.S. Just getting rid of the feminists in the universities isn’t good enough. Feminist Supreme Court wins set precedent for ALL of Canada and have a very powerful and insidious affect on public policy in all kinds of institutions at all levels. (Check out your local elementary school.) Getting rid of government funding for these unhappy, utopian ladies would be a very good place to start.

Posted by: lookout at August 22, 2006 07:35 PM

---

But if we didn't have the Status of Women, we wouldn't have any rights for women in Canada at all. Just like if we got rid of the Human Rights Commissions, we would have no more human rights in Canada.

That's the mentality of the average Canadian voter, it'll take a strong campaign to change their mind, simply b/c of the name.

Posted by: Peter Jay at August 23, 2006 12:24 AM

---

What exactly is your definition of a "radical feminist"?

Posted by: A at August 23, 2006 01:02 AM

---

SOW also funds studies and papers designed to cause real harm to YOUR son. SOW also funds studies and papers calling for the end of free speech for males.

SOW and other federal agencies are also opposed to the best interests of battered men and through that support child abuse: Current child abuse numbers run in the 113,000 case per year range, we can drop that below the 100,000 mark by simply ending discrimination against male victims of violence. Cheap, easy, helps kids and is VIOLENTLY opposed by SOW and the people who support it.

We must all remember that this agency and the people who support it are opposed to human rights for half of Canada.

Posted by: jw at August 23, 2006 04:16 AM

---

"Peter Jay", 12:24 am:

Good point, and likely quite prescient. We'll see if you're right when this gets more MSM...

Posted by: Mad Mike at August 23, 2006 07:34 AM

---

What exactly is your definition of a "radical feminist"?

Actually, that's very easy. Any group that gets funding from SWC.

I'm not being glib. There is a positive feedback loop at work here. Any engineer will tell you positive feedback is bad because it drives the system to an extreme state and keeps it there (like a microphone picking up the sound it is transmitting, reinforcing the same frequencies and harmonics until you get a single screeching tone). In this case, SWC is set up by a government with a particular viewpoint about how the "status" of women is to be enhanced. Initially, the bureaucrats might be mildly radical. Makes sense, since most conservative women don't look to the government to enhance their status. The agency passes out money to those women's groups with a similar viewpoint and not to others. Each successive iteration of bureaucrats is drawn from the organizations SWC supports, so on each iteration, the bureaucrats become more and more fixated on one particular form of feminism. They fund more groups like that, and strangle others as not being feminist. Positive feedback takes over and you end up with the montonic feminist screech we tend to hear all the time. Not just about status in the workplace, not just about equal pay, but as requiring any group to support abortion, requiring any group to support left-wing social justice, requiring any group to decry conservatism, etc, etc.

Posted by: Steve Janke at August 23, 2006 09:53 AM

---

GREAT definition of "radical feminist," Steve.

Hallmarks of a radical feminist:

* rabidly anti-men;
* men are always the perpetrators of violence and despite the evidence that women are at fault at least 50% of the time, their motto is "Don't confuse me with the facts.";
* convinced of women's supremacy;
* not supportive of motherhood or, if supportive, motherhood, after the baby is born, must be without a male partner; your partner, to be acceptable, must be another woman;
*says she's for "choice," but only if you agree with her worldview; if you are a woman and choose marriage and/or to have stay-at-home kids, your husband is often considered a rapist and you are considered his chattel;
*considers the only acceptable choice for women with children is universal, government-funded, daycare; mothers who stay at home to care for their own children are traitors to the feminist cause;
*absolute dedication to abortion on demand and anyone who dares question a woman's right to "choose," (aka to abort) is anathema to their cause and is shunned, despised, not worth listening to;
*all of their agenda must be funded by the government;
*women are always victims and, therefore, are deserving of government funding;
*anyone who questions their agenda, can, and will be, treated with the utmost contempt and, furthermore, it is acceptable to misrepresent their position and heap vendective on them: all in a day's government-funded work.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 23, 2006 10:59 AM

---

Don't forget SOW's counterpart in Ontario (OWD).

What you say is so sad yet so true.

If a woman has a professional/technical disagreement with one of their ilk, you are a big mean bully (and they will run to the nearest man to make the big mean bully go away). There is no room for competent professional women (like REAL) in their world who doesn't 'keep the faith'.

If you are a man (and boy do they want to get rid of you boys, you have no reason to exist in their minds), you won't even get to the disagreement -- you are not allowed to speak your mind in the first place.

Posted by: at August 23, 2006 01:18 PM

---

If any of you want to check out a cool website, checkout masculinism.net This is Steve Dixon's own blog. He's the man who introduced the term 'masculinism' into the English language. I especially like his idea of men skiffing fags off of women and having them foot the bill for a date. The ball is rolling so to speak, the forces of good are getting ready to take on the bull-dyke radical feminists once and for all. I'm completely taking the piss right now, so don't mind me! But check the blog out, it's quite interesting!

Posted by: TheDiggler at August 23, 2006 05:57 PM

---

Any group that gets funding from the SOW.

Steve, that's not a proper definition of a "radical feminist," and you know it. I'd still honestly like to know what you consider to be "radical." For that matter, I'd be interested in your definition of "conservative feminist," as well as your thoughts on what you would consider to be "mainstream feminism".

Here's a list of recent SOW grants. Mostly, they seem to be focused on training programs and anti-poverty/homelessness strategies. Sounds rather benign to me.

Posted by: A at August 23, 2006 07:27 PM

---

A: As Steve has already answered your question about the definition of a "radical feminist," in addition to his referencing radical feminists as "Any group that gets funding from the SOW," here's what he said, as you appear to have missed it:

Radical feminists are women who screech about:

* status in the workplace;
* equal pay [and that's NOT equal pay for equal work, but equal pay 'for work of equal value'; who's going to decide THAT? More bureaucracy?];
* support for abortion,
* supporting left-wing social justice;
* conservatism, etc.

His is not an exhaustive list, nor is mine below his, but both lists hit on a number of qualifiers if you want to be belong to either NAC or SOW, or be a recipient of any of their grants.

I checked out where the SOW grants are going and notice that they are going to all of the usual suspects. The language describing the projects the taxpayer is funding is so general as to be almost meaningless:

$100,000 is going to a project at the Community Microskills Development Centre which is “designed to improve economic and social opportunities for immigrant, racial minority and low income women in the Etobicoke area." What would these improved opportunities include?

Another grant of $29,000 "will support a group of low income women on Vancouver Island to continue with their collective effort to make known their particular perspectives [what would these be?] on issues of public policy related to social and economic exclusion with a broader range of audiences, including other women's groups, academic researchers, students, anti-poverty groups, government officials and journalists."

"A broader range of audiences"? And this broader range of "audiences" includes other women's groups, academic researchers, students, anti-poverty groups, government officials and journalists? These audiences sound like the usual groups to whom these women would already have made known "their particular perspective" on inclusion/exclusion.

The grants listed are those over $25,000, for the “first Quarter� – “2006 – 2007.� They amount to $419,000, almost half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money, and not including the total of grants under $25,000—or the amount of grants for the whole year.

The point is, none of these initiatives are new, and many of them include a narrow range of women’s issues, many of which, in any case, are being dealt with in other government portfolios. Why do women have a special status portfolio when men don’t? That doesn’t seem like equality to me.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 23, 2006 11:32 PM

---

Jesus, what a bunch of whiners.

If any of you want to check out a cool website, checkout masculinism.net This is Steve Dixon's own blog. He's the man who introduced the term 'masculinism' into the English language. I especially like his idea of men skiffing fags off of women and having them foot the bill for a date. The ball is rolling so to speak, the forces of good are getting ready to take on the bull-dyke radical feminists once and for all. I'm completely taking the piss right now, so don't mind me! But check the blog out, it's quite interesting!

Nice crowd of brutal, bitter women-haters you're attacting these days, Stephen.

Someone should direct Bev Oda and Mauril Bélanger to your blog commentary to see what kind of mentality motivates you and your readership.

Posted by: Ti-Guy at August 25, 2006 10:25 AM

---