Wednesday, August 23
Oh boy! Charts and graphs from... the group I'm actually criticizing
(Aug 24 UPDATE: one of Kate's commenters asks: So if SOW gets upwards of $29 million in Federal fundng and doles out less than $2 million...?)
***
Good for Audra for at least acknowledging that employing Typical Left Wing Circular Arguments ("We need Status of Women Canada because we need Status of Women Canada -- you sexist, racist, homophobe, born again redneck!!") is no argument at all. (And come on: no woman who appreciates the sublime wonderfulness of Mr. Winkle is completely beyond redemption).
However, her game response is to post charts and graphs from Status of Women Canada itself, showing how bad off we females are... oh my dear girl...
I mean: if Status of Women is so effective, why are the statistics for women so "bad"? The group has been around for decades, has a generous budget, but their own stats seem to indicate that they've not done much good.
But of course, if you're a Leftist, efficiency = fascism; good intentions are everything, and positive results are highly suspect... That's why they tend to congregate in low paying, low accountability loser jobs, then bitch about how successful women like me are such ingrates, who don't appreciate all the hard (activist) work they do for me!
Groups like Status of Women cannot present an iota of concrete proof that they have raised the living standards of any particular Canadian women -- except for their own staff members, whom I assume are paid salaries above the national average.
Only individuals, using their own intelligence, will power, ambition, networking skills and so forth, can change their own circumstances. And frankly, as a woman living in Canada (and not Afganistan or Somalia), I think my "status" was pretty high just by virtue of being born here, socialist snowball republic though it may be. Audra's commenters talk about the discouraging "messages" women allegedly get from people less enlightened than themselves.
Well, I chose to ignore, using nothing more than my own sheer stubborness, the lifetime of negative messages I got from socialist feminist weaklings -- that I needed "special" consideration, that I was going to be raped any second, that without the power of the Sisterhood, I was doomed.
Rather, the nuns who taught me from nursery school through Grade 13 (that tells you how old I am) told me I could be whatever I wanted to be, because I was smart and driven. And that's just what I've done. (So much for the evil Catholic patriarchy.)
Anyway, I can present stats of my own. A recent survey from Australia indicated that rape/domestic abuse statistics are greatly exaggerated. In fact, they were off by a matter of 91%! And one's own common sense proves this. If "one in four" women really were raped, I would know lots of rape victims, but I don't. And neither do you, unless you spend a lot of time in victim industries like social work, self help and anything to do with lesbians.
Women do earn less than men, but not when they do the same job. Women make less overall because they choose stupid, easy jobs like secretarial work or waitressing or retail and are too lazy, timid or unambitious to do much else. They think some Prince Charming will come along one day anyway, so why bother?
Women with real careers take time out to raise children, as they should. But this means they necessarily forfeit promotions and seniority that would raise their salaries.
Also, it is simply a fact that most women aren't interested in engineering and other male oriented jobs, even if they have the ability, which few do. Our brains are different. When someone points this out, outraged women don't respond with calm, rational talking points -- they throw hormonal hissy fits which simply undermine their own arguments! (Women suck at math, but they are geniuses at chronic self sabotage).
Of course, feminists deny that men and women are born different -- even when their male toddlers, forbidden to play with toy guns, instinctively fashion them out of sticks, and their daughters play with dolls made of rolled up socks if that's all they can find.
One of the commenters says that women like me who criticize SOW are "working for right wing think tanks". Hey, I wish! But... what is SOW but a left wing think tank of sorts? Oh, but that's different, huh?
Without irony, another of Audra's commenters mocks Margaret Thatcher -- a high achieving woman by anyone's standards. But of course, she's not "a proper woman" in Leftist terms, so she doesn't count.
Which proves the point of the initial blogburst: that SOW does NOT represent all women, and therefore shouldn't use my taxes to lobby for a radical feminist agenda dominated by abortion rights, victimhood, junk science and male bashing.
PLUS: Kate adds...
***
Good for Audra for at least acknowledging that employing Typical Left Wing Circular Arguments ("We need Status of Women Canada because we need Status of Women Canada -- you sexist, racist, homophobe, born again redneck!!") is no argument at all. (And come on: no woman who appreciates the sublime wonderfulness of Mr. Winkle is completely beyond redemption).
However, her game response is to post charts and graphs from Status of Women Canada itself, showing how bad off we females are... oh my dear girl...
I mean: if Status of Women is so effective, why are the statistics for women so "bad"? The group has been around for decades, has a generous budget, but their own stats seem to indicate that they've not done much good.
But of course, if you're a Leftist, efficiency = fascism; good intentions are everything, and positive results are highly suspect... That's why they tend to congregate in low paying, low accountability loser jobs, then bitch about how successful women like me are such ingrates, who don't appreciate all the hard (activist) work they do for me!
Groups like Status of Women cannot present an iota of concrete proof that they have raised the living standards of any particular Canadian women -- except for their own staff members, whom I assume are paid salaries above the national average.
Only individuals, using their own intelligence, will power, ambition, networking skills and so forth, can change their own circumstances. And frankly, as a woman living in Canada (and not Afganistan or Somalia), I think my "status" was pretty high just by virtue of being born here, socialist snowball republic though it may be. Audra's commenters talk about the discouraging "messages" women allegedly get from people less enlightened than themselves.
Well, I chose to ignore, using nothing more than my own sheer stubborness, the lifetime of negative messages I got from socialist feminist weaklings -- that I needed "special" consideration, that I was going to be raped any second, that without the power of the Sisterhood, I was doomed.
Rather, the nuns who taught me from nursery school through Grade 13 (that tells you how old I am) told me I could be whatever I wanted to be, because I was smart and driven. And that's just what I've done. (So much for the evil Catholic patriarchy.)
Anyway, I can present stats of my own. A recent survey from Australia indicated that rape/domestic abuse statistics are greatly exaggerated. In fact, they were off by a matter of 91%! And one's own common sense proves this. If "one in four" women really were raped, I would know lots of rape victims, but I don't. And neither do you, unless you spend a lot of time in victim industries like social work, self help and anything to do with lesbians.
This mother of all factoids is based on a fallacious feminist study commissioned by Ms. magazine. The researcher, Mary Koss, hand-picked by hard-line feminist Gloria Steinem, acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped. Forty-three percent of them were dating their "attacker" again.
Women do earn less than men, but not when they do the same job. Women make less overall because they choose stupid, easy jobs like secretarial work or waitressing or retail and are too lazy, timid or unambitious to do much else. They think some Prince Charming will come along one day anyway, so why bother?
Women with real careers take time out to raise children, as they should. But this means they necessarily forfeit promotions and seniority that would raise their salaries.
Also, it is simply a fact that most women aren't interested in engineering and other male oriented jobs, even if they have the ability, which few do. Our brains are different. When someone points this out, outraged women don't respond with calm, rational talking points -- they throw hormonal hissy fits which simply undermine their own arguments! (Women suck at math, but they are geniuses at chronic self sabotage).
Of course, feminists deny that men and women are born different -- even when their male toddlers, forbidden to play with toy guns, instinctively fashion them out of sticks, and their daughters play with dolls made of rolled up socks if that's all they can find.
One of the commenters says that women like me who criticize SOW are "working for right wing think tanks". Hey, I wish! But... what is SOW but a left wing think tank of sorts? Oh, but that's different, huh?
Without irony, another of Audra's commenters mocks Margaret Thatcher -- a high achieving woman by anyone's standards. But of course, she's not "a proper woman" in Leftist terms, so she doesn't count.
Which proves the point of the initial blogburst: that SOW does NOT represent all women, and therefore shouldn't use my taxes to lobby for a radical feminist agenda dominated by abortion rights, victimhood, junk science and male bashing.
PLUS: Kate adds...
I speak as a woman who has worked in a male work setting for all of my adult life. I can say with some authority that the time has come to dismantle organized feminism.
