I found the choice of title for Antonia Zerbisias’ article quite interesting: “Tory legacy leaves little to attract women voters.”
I would like to ask why it is she thinks she has a monopoly on the desires and aspirations of women. Right off the bat, I must say that I get quite annoyed with the SOW for doing this very thing. They aren’t interested in representing all women; they speak and advocate only for those particular women whose ideologies align with their own. Any women who disagree are ostracised, defamed, belittled, and have their motives impugned. Suddenly, being a woman matters very little to them.
The truth is, they do not speak for all women; they speak only for women like them. So why should the government fund their special interests?
I think the reason (at least in part) that women still trail behind their male counterparts economically is simply because working mothers usually can't climb the corporate ladder unless they are willing to sacrifice the time with their children for their jobs the way men so often do. Employers usually prefer people who can work late hours with no distractions, and, unfortunately, who will "be one of the guys." It has much to do with the fact that working mothers, statistically speaking, shoulder the brunt of the practical and emotional work associated with family life, as W.Bradford Wilcox notes in his book "Soft Patriarchs, New Men”: Though society has taken an egalitarian trajectory in the public worlds of law, education, work, politics, and the cultural understanding of gender, the private institution of the family has not changed as quickly, largely because men have failed to take on an equal portion of the responsibility for family life. Men’s behaviour in this regard has two important consequences: first, it contributes to gender inequality in public and private life as women’s domestic responsibilities limit their public opportunities; and second, it places tremendous practical and psychological pressure on women, especially mothers who work outside the home. Thus, as Frances Goldscheider and Linda Waite have observed, the way to an egalitarian “new family” order “will lead through men.”
Married men with children seem to be the primary obstacle to the complete triumph of the gender revolution, not a lack of daycare. I am not saying daycare isn’t important; I am just saying daycare will not change the male chauvinism that is standing in the way of an economic gender-equality, and you cannot honestly attribute a lack of daycare to this imbalance.
Something else worthy of noting is that owing to this pressure that has been put on mothers who work outside the home, there seems to be more of a trend among young Generation Y women who have watched their "superwoman" mothers struggle and would prefer themselves to stay home with their young children. Dual-parent, single income homes are on the rise. Several other working mothers would prefer to quit working to raise their young children, but they can't afford to. So it could be that the Tories are tapping into the desires of this quite notable group of women.
The private member bills invoked here that were purportedly "aimed at curtailing abortion rights" were:
1) a bill that would make it an offense to kill a woman's baby against her will.
Currently, you can kill a woman's unborn baby in Canada, leave the mother to bury her dead child, and then be charged not with murder, but merely with assault of the woman. The unborn child is a non-existent entity in this country. That means you can do whatever you want to that child throughout the duration of the nine months (with or without the mother's consent) and walk away unscathed; And
2) a bill that would make it an offense to coerce a woman into getting an abortion against her will.
Coerced abortion has been proven to be psychologically, spiritually, and mentally devastating for women.
These bills were both consistent with the “choices” of women; both very pro-woman. But it seems that because these particular women’s desires aren't compatible with the ideology held to by the SOW, they are not considered important Women’s issues.
I am a woman, and I don’t approve of the gun registry. In fact, the registry does very little to protect women from abusive spouses. Being shot with a registered gun makes very little difference when you have a bullet in your head.
Finally, the Maternal Health Initiative: How can you call abortion uniformly pro-woman? How many little girls are killed through abortions? In several developing and third-world countries (even in Canada!), there is a huge problem with sex-selective abortions: little girls are unwanted by virtue of their femaleness. The problem for women snowballs from there, as there is a marked ratio imbalance between men and women. Women and female children from neighbouring countries are later abducted to be brides, or trafficked into prostitution to meet the sexual appetites of a population of unmarried men. The reason there are these 70,000 women dying from illegal abortions every year (if this number is accurate), is because so many women in developing countries do not have access to antibiotics or adequate health care. It is not because illegal abortions are more dangerous. (In fact, even in countries like the US where abortion is legal, abortion clinics are private, unregulated, and their cleanliness often leaves much to be desired. The same doctors that perform illegal abortions are the ones performing legal ones.) The real problem is that abortions are known for causing severe infections and other events that require immediate surgery….not to mention the psychological risks associated with abortion often propels women into suicide. At first glance, you’d think providing safer abortion services would make be better for these women, but if you really think about it, bringing abortion into some of these countries (especially where women cannot easily travel to get to the doctor in the likely event something goes awry) would be extremely reckless. It is much safer to deliver a baby (which is a natural process), then to abort it (which requires an invasive and dangerous procedure that obstructs a natural process).
Furthermore, Harper’s initiative was a “Maternal Health Care” initiative; it was not a reproductive health care initiative. Therefore, it covered maternal health and not reproductive health.
The majority of these women would prefer not to have their children aborted, but the opportunity to carry them to term, deliver them safely, and be able to provide for their needs. (Why are his efforts to help impoverished women deliver safely not being applauded by these women's agencies - why do they advocate strictly for women who choose abortion?)
Offering abortion to impoverished women instead of working to make proper maternal health care accessible is a cop-out at best, and at worst, a deceptive strategy used to target the poor in a pursuit of population control.
Now the 500 missing Native women, I have a HUGE problem with. That said, I don’t see any other party real passionate about justice for aboriginal women….though I desperately wish they were. It actually took a woman Conservative MP (Joy Smith) to come up with a bill that would establish mandatory minimum sentencing for the sex trafficking of children. This is a real issue in the aboriginal population. Native women make up the majority of women who are sexually exploited through prostitution in this country….and most of those entered “the trade” in their early adolescence (average 13 years-old). It's the generational fall-out of the residential school systems that leaves these young girls vulenerable to trafficking. The theory of many aboriginal women's associations is that the sex-trafficking of aboriginal women in this country has something to do with the 500 missing aboriginal women.
My point is that we don’t need more Conservatives, Liberals, or NDP’s; we need more women in parliament.
I would like to ask why it is she thinks she has a monopoly on the desires and aspirations of women. Right off the bat, I must say that I get quite annoyed with the SOW for doing this very thing. They aren’t interested in representing all women; they speak and advocate only for those particular women whose ideologies align with their own. Any women who disagree are ostracised, defamed, belittled, and have their motives impugned. Suddenly, being a woman matters very little to them.
The truth is, they do not speak for all women; they speak only for women like them. So why should the government fund their special interests?
I think the reason (at least in part) that women still trail behind their male counterparts economically is simply because working mothers usually can't climb the corporate ladder unless they are willing to sacrifice the time with their children for their jobs the way men so often do. Employers usually prefer people who can work late hours with no distractions, and, unfortunately, who will "be one of the guys." It has much to do with the fact that working mothers, statistically speaking, shoulder the brunt of the practical and emotional work associated with family life, as W.Bradford Wilcox notes in his book "Soft Patriarchs, New Men”: Though society has taken an egalitarian trajectory in the public worlds of law, education, work, politics, and the cultural understanding of gender, the private institution of the family has not changed as quickly, largely because men have failed to take on an equal portion of the responsibility for family life. Men’s behaviour in this regard has two important consequences: first, it contributes to gender inequality in public and private life as women’s domestic responsibilities limit their public opportunities; and second, it places tremendous practical and psychological pressure on women, especially mothers who work outside the home. Thus, as Frances Goldscheider and Linda Waite have observed, the way to an egalitarian “new family” order “will lead through men.”
Married men with children seem to be the primary obstacle to the complete triumph of the gender revolution, not a lack of daycare. I am not saying daycare isn’t important; I am just saying daycare will not change the male chauvinism that is standing in the way of an economic gender-equality, and you cannot honestly attribute a lack of daycare to this imbalance.
Something else worthy of noting is that owing to this pressure that has been put on mothers who work outside the home, there seems to be more of a trend among young Generation Y women who have watched their "superwoman" mothers struggle and would prefer themselves to stay home with their young children. Dual-parent, single income homes are on the rise. Several other working mothers would prefer to quit working to raise their young children, but they can't afford to. So it could be that the Tories are tapping into the desires of this quite notable group of women.
The private member bills invoked here that were purportedly "aimed at curtailing abortion rights" were:
1) a bill that would make it an offense to kill a woman's baby against her will.
Currently, you can kill a woman's unborn baby in Canada, leave the mother to bury her dead child, and then be charged not with murder, but merely with assault of the woman. The unborn child is a non-existent entity in this country. That means you can do whatever you want to that child throughout the duration of the nine months (with or without the mother's consent) and walk away unscathed; And
2) a bill that would make it an offense to coerce a woman into getting an abortion against her will.
Coerced abortion has been proven to be psychologically, spiritually, and mentally devastating for women.
These bills were both consistent with the “choices” of women; both very pro-woman. But it seems that because these particular women’s desires aren't compatible with the ideology held to by the SOW, they are not considered important Women’s issues.
I am a woman, and I don’t approve of the gun registry. In fact, the registry does very little to protect women from abusive spouses. Being shot with a registered gun makes very little difference when you have a bullet in your head.
Finally, the Maternal Health Initiative: How can you call abortion uniformly pro-woman? How many little girls are killed through abortions? In several developing and third-world countries (even in Canada!), there is a huge problem with sex-selective abortions: little girls are unwanted by virtue of their femaleness. The problem for women snowballs from there, as there is a marked ratio imbalance between men and women. Women and female children from neighbouring countries are later abducted to be brides, or trafficked into prostitution to meet the sexual appetites of a population of unmarried men. The reason there are these 70,000 women dying from illegal abortions every year (if this number is accurate), is because so many women in developing countries do not have access to antibiotics or adequate health care. It is not because illegal abortions are more dangerous. (In fact, even in countries like the US where abortion is legal, abortion clinics are private, unregulated, and their cleanliness often leaves much to be desired. The same doctors that perform illegal abortions are the ones performing legal ones.) The real problem is that abortions are known for causing severe infections and other events that require immediate surgery….not to mention the psychological risks associated with abortion often propels women into suicide. At first glance, you’d think providing safer abortion services would make be better for these women, but if you really think about it, bringing abortion into some of these countries (especially where women cannot easily travel to get to the doctor in the likely event something goes awry) would be extremely reckless. It is much safer to deliver a baby (which is a natural process), then to abort it (which requires an invasive and dangerous procedure that obstructs a natural process).
Furthermore, Harper’s initiative was a “Maternal Health Care” initiative; it was not a reproductive health care initiative. Therefore, it covered maternal health and not reproductive health.
The majority of these women would prefer not to have their children aborted, but the opportunity to carry them to term, deliver them safely, and be able to provide for their needs. (Why are his efforts to help impoverished women deliver safely not being applauded by these women's agencies - why do they advocate strictly for women who choose abortion?)
Offering abortion to impoverished women instead of working to make proper maternal health care accessible is a cop-out at best, and at worst, a deceptive strategy used to target the poor in a pursuit of population control.
Now the 500 missing Native women, I have a HUGE problem with. That said, I don’t see any other party real passionate about justice for aboriginal women….though I desperately wish they were. It actually took a woman Conservative MP (Joy Smith) to come up with a bill that would establish mandatory minimum sentencing for the sex trafficking of children. This is a real issue in the aboriginal population. Native women make up the majority of women who are sexually exploited through prostitution in this country….and most of those entered “the trade” in their early adolescence (average 13 years-old). It's the generational fall-out of the residential school systems that leaves these young girls vulenerable to trafficking. The theory of many aboriginal women's associations is that the sex-trafficking of aboriginal women in this country has something to do with the 500 missing aboriginal women.
My point is that we don’t need more Conservatives, Liberals, or NDP’s; we need more women in parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment