......Equality?
WhatDoTheyReallyWant?
TrueAgendaVille
Alison over at Creekside, after pointing us to an excellent opinion piece by Heather Mallick on the efforts of the group 'REAL Women Canada' to eliminate the Federal Government's standing committee on the 'Status of Women Canada', asks the following:
"Dear REAL Women : How much clout do you think your little club would have in a world without feminism, given that even if you're a REAL good little chicken, Colonel Sanders can't marry each and every one of you?"
Why does Alison ask such a question, you might be asking yourself?
Well, if you go to the REAL Women website you will find that one of their stated goals is actually Equality for Women:
"The issue of equality for women is one with which few women would disagree. There are, nonetheless, different approaches to achieving it. The development of an alternate women's movement, therefore, with a different perspective should not be regarded as a threat, but should be regarded as an advancement for women, in that it reflects the great depth and diversity among Canadian women."
And what exactly is this alternate 'Women's Movement' and what is it's perspective?
Well, that is a little more difficult to discern by searching the website. In addition to the apparent fact that 'most women have children and want to nurture them' it appears that a 'diversity of views' and the 'individuality of women' are very important components of this movement. However, additionally it appears, at least according to the group's latest 'Action Alert' that this alternate women's movement has no room for feminists who write letters to the Prime minister about the Status of Women's support for women's shelters.
"The theme of these many letters is that "shelters for abused women and children protect them from the violence." (No mention of the studies which indicate that half of domestic violence is instigated by the women.) The letters also claim that women need the support of the Status of Women to work for pay equity, marital property and senior women's income, etc."
All of which leaves us slightly confused and wondering what REAL Women really want.
Clearly, the group is conservative. It has aligned itself with other conservative groups, including Focus on the Family (Canada), Home School Legal Defence Association of Canada, and the Canada Family Action Coalition under the banner of 'The Coalition For Family Automomy' in the past and still refers to these various groups in the present on the website. And just as clearly, again based on past actions and current statements on their website, they also believe in so-called 'traditional' family values and would like to see stay-at-home Mom's be more highly valued.
All of which is fair enough.
I mean, if you are a group that really wants to see the tax system modified to help out single income families with stay-at-home Mom's, make your case and openly push the government and public opinion alike for those changes.
I would have no problem with that because that is the way a liberal democracy is supposed to work.
But for the life of me I honestly cannot understand what this has to do with 'equality', especially given that the group has worked so hard to get rid of shelters for battered women and universal childcare that would have been universally equal for everyone.
Given all of this, a cynic might suggest that this is actually a strategy of obfuscation designed to co-opt the other side's (ie. feminism's) strongest asset (ie. equality).
Which makes it all the more curious that one of the members of the afore-mentioned 'Coalition for Family Autonomy', the 'Canada Family Action Coalition' last fall helped the 'Institute For Canadian Values' bring Ralph Reed to Toronto to energize the faithful to punch the ballot for Stephen Harper:
US political wiz, Dr. Ralph Reed, addressing a Toronto gathering of religious and other social conservative leaders Nov. 30, urged them to organize effectively and on Jan. 23 “usher in the greatest victory in the history of this country.”
Dr. Reed, was senior adviser for President George W. Bush’s election campaign and as executive director of the Christian Coalition built the most influential grassroots organization in recent U.S. politics. He was invited to address the Wednesday evening banquet of the three day 2005 Canadian Values - Embrace Democracy conference organized by the Institute for Canadian Values.
Again, on the face of it, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as one considers the source.
And when considering the source it's not just the ties to the current U.S. Administration that one should take into account, but also the fact that the doctorous Mr. Reed is a very fine fellow who once said:
"I want to be invisible," Reed said. "I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night."
Unfortunately, especially for those who, including conservative christians, really and truly do believe that obfuscation and hypocrisy are actually bad things, Mr. Reed also said the following very recently when he lost his primary bid to become the Lt. Governor of the State of Georgia:
"I'm proud of the campaign we ran," Reed, weary but ever positive, told TIME. "I'm glad we did it."
Why is this statement unfortunate?
Well, read on.....
He (Reed) didn't want to talk about why he lost, but those who know him say he blames the media--particularly the Atlanta Journal-Constitution--for their extensive coverage of his business ties to (Jack) Abramoff, his friend from their days running the College Republicans in the early 1980s. For a high-profile religious conservative like Reed, the stories of being paid millions by one Indian tribe to run a religious-based antigambling campaign to prevent another tribe from opening a rival casino made him look like something worse than a criminal--a hypocrite. He had once called gambling a "cancer" on the body politic. And the e-mails to Abramoff didn't help, especially those that seemed to suggest that the man who had deplored in print Washington's system of "honest graft" was eager to be part of it. "I need to start humping in corporate accounts!" he wrote Abramoff a few days after the 1998 election.
Hmmm.....that cynicism meter is now starting to red line. Guess Mr. Reed just figured that some tribes were more equal than others.
_____
And the sudden, REAL Women-assisted, swarming of the Status of Women by the right side of the Canadian Bloggodome has only served to increase my level of cynicism.
And how about the 'Christian Coalition' (these folks just seem to love names, names, names), well in the wake of Mr. Reed's latest 'difficulties' it seems to be splintering all over the place. Guess that means there will soon be a whole passel of new names to try and keep track of.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment