Angry in the Great White North

Noticed by the Canadian Press, no less:

Several pro-Conservative Internet blogs have signed onto a campaign to eliminate Status of Women Canada, a Trudeau-era federal agency that promotes women's equality and advancement.

The campaign was kickstarted by REAL Women of Canada, one of Canada's most vocal organizations of social conservatives. It has long urged the federal government to axe Status of Women - but this time its message is being widely discussed and supported among some in the Conservative Internet community.

My modest contribution is noted:

Says blogger Steven Janke of Angry in the Great White North: "Any women's group that does not subscribe to a 'woman as the victim' view is likely to leave empty-handed if it were to ask for funding."

Not everyone is happy:

There's been no indication from women's groups so far that the agency's existence is in jeopardy.

But fears that the campaign might find favour within a caucus that includes many social conservatives have taken root in some quarters.

Halifax communications consultant and blogger Audra Williams has mounted her own counter-offensive, urging readers to write to their MP in support of Status of Women Canada.

"This actually turns my blood to ice," Williams wrote last week. "I am calling my MP right now. I mean, I know she's on board, but still I am calling her."

Yeah, hectoring someone on a topic that has already be discussed and decided is a great way to make friends and influence people.

But remember what this is about. This isn't about putting women into the kitchen, or taking away their right to vote, or making it legal for men to abuse women. This is about whether women's interests are best served by placing a government department in charge of it.

The problem with governments, especially federal governments, is that they offer one-size-fits-all solutions. Of course, that means a government solution doesn't fit most anyone.

In this case, the solution for improving the status of women is what most people would term radical feminism -- that flavour of feminism that is anti-male, anti-religion, anti-globalization, etc, etc.

A reader asked me how I defined "radical feminism". It's simple. Anything funded by the Status of Women Canada.

I wasn't being glib. When the Status of Women Canada was created, it was mildly radical. A product of the times. But without a balance, the slight tilt in one direction became exaggerated over time. In engineering, we call it "positive feedback". A slightly radical government department rewards slightly more radical women's groups. When those bureaucrats move on, the government replaces them with new hires recruited from those funded groups, no doubt through an affirmative action program created by the first generation of bureaucrats. Access to government funding enabled this new generation of bureaucrats to reward even more strident feminists, and the cycle repeats itself, exaggerating the radical tilt.

The end result of positive feedback is always an extreme and unstable system. Politically, that is equivalent to radicalism. That is why I can, with confidence, define radical feminism by merely pointing to a government funding program run by feminists. Positive feedback means the result is unavoidable. This is why conservatives always look with great suspicion at government run social programs. Radicalization is almost inevitable over time.

The private sector does not lend itself to positive feedback. In general, negative feedback loops dominate, which is a good thing. As a group becomes more radical and positions itself on the margins, it will find it difficult to raise funds since fewer people identify themselves at the margins. Since funds are distributed across the general population, and not concentrated by taxes into the hands of a few bureaucrats, financial success is dependent on appealing to as many people as possible. In the private sector, moderation is rewarded since the vast number of people cluster in the moderate centre, or even just to the right of centre. Moving away from the centre, especially to the left, means moving away from the money, which draws you back to the centre.

The end result of negative feedback is moderation and stability. In political terms, it is consensus and compromise.

REAL Women is such a centrist group:

REAL Women of Canada's objectives include promoting equality. The organization, which has not received federal funding for several years, is also against abortion and same-sex marriage. It advocates a "Judeo-Christian" understanding of marriage and family life.

REAL Women gets its funding from private sources. People like Audra Williams would never provide a dime to REAL Women:

In response to a recent national initiative to eliminate reproductive choice in Canada, Lefty Lucy Communications has launched a national web-based project called Clarification.ca. The goal of the project is to collect stories from women across the country that have exercised their right to choose, and have no regrets about having done so.

"This is why I started a public relations company in the first place," said company founder Audra Williams. "There are so many voices that aren't finding their way into the mainstream. We're working to dispel shame from women who have had a perfectly legal procedure."

Yeah, like getting a haircut. No regrets. No guilt. No consequences.

Since when did people become so ashamed of being ashamed? A negative emotion like shame can be a very positive thing. It is the knowledge that an act is shameful that prevents a person from committing that act, at least not without a great deal of thought and consideration. Take away shame, and there are no limits or boundaries, no hesitation or second guessing. See where I'm going? Shame is the a negative feedback emotion. It has a moderating effect.

But as I said, radical feminism is all about positive feedback, which is why we are saddled with the Status of Women Canada today.

Audra Williams can promote whatever she likes. She has a successful business that I expect is not dependent on government contracts. She is intelligent and articulate. So why does she want to be dependent on me? Why does she want any of the liberated women to be dependent on me? The idea of being dependent on funding from a male-dominant patriarchal government should be repellent to the liberated woman.

But I don't pretend to know how these women come to terms with this unsettling paradox. Perhaps the flow of cash soothes whatever concerns they might have.

In any case, by its very nature, the Status of Women Canada can't pretend to represent the interests of the majority of Canadian women. As a government agency hidden behind layers of bureaucracy, it is not directly responsible to those women, or to any women. A private organization like REAL Women is immediately responsible to its members for its actions, for its successes, and for its failures. That responsibility, that negative feedback, means that REAL Women has to be effective and responsive, or it will cease to exist.

A group like REAL Women lives in the real world.