Critics slam Tory decision to close most Status of Women offices

I went camping with a friend a couple of weeks ago and explained to him why I was happy about this (all my experiences with SOW have been bad ones: misandric research, misandric lobbying). He had a few questions, but by the end of it accepted that getting rid of SOW would be for the best.

When we got home, his wife invited me to stay for dinner that night. After dinner she mentioned that she was horrified with the Conservative government... after all look at them cut "women's programs".

We talked about it for a while, and I could only think of one really important argument to make: there is a difference between "Women's Programs" and SOW. I think this is an important distinction that the media is not making. The government has cut funding (or reduced... I can't remember) to a single program. The media is stating that this program is a women's program, but I don't think the critics have seriously looked at whether the program has any further merit.

My friend, and his wife, are not fans of the Harper government, but at this point they realize that Harper wasn't attacking "Women", he was attacking "SOW". They would like to see him gone for a lot of reasons, but this is no longer one of them.
__________________________________________________
http://www.vius.ca

That is most certainly the point the media is conveniently forgetting: what's being closed down is the taxpayer-funded manhating apparatus that was the ideological root of feminists lobbying the Canadian government. As Bev Oda herself put it, the government is very interested in funding services and programs that actually help women, not lobbying and ideology. Like everyone else, women can pay for that themselves. Welcome to equality, girls.

Kavius, have you also noticed a sudden increase in the misandry coming out of the opposition and the media since Bev Oda's announcement a few weeks back? Oh well, they say when you're catching flak, it means you're over the target!

I'm all for programs and services that are specific to one gender (provided the terrible imbalance favouring women is corrected, that is), because men and women DO have different needs from time to time, but it always made my blood boil to know that a portion of every dollar in taxes I paid was funding my own destruction. I swear that this announcement and the one where they cut the SOWs funding dropped my blood pressure by 10% on the spot. Maybe we can get on with some common sense now?

Of course, the Liberals instantly took the opportunity to be just as partisan as the Conservatives and pandered to women with their pathetic "Pink Book". That turncoat Stronach was the spokesthing, naturally. Their new slogan should be: "In A Liberal Canada, Men Don't Matter. They Just Pay." The fact that such an openly misandric strategy will probably work tells me everything I need to know about plenty of Canadian women and ALL Liberals (i.e. the political party, not the philosophy).

I was never a fan of Harper (a bit too neocon for me, rather than "conservative"), but "any port in a storm", right?

there is a difference between "Women's Programs" and SOW

What are the "Women's programs" you think taxpayers must pay for?

Things like pre-natal screening and "family planning" paid for in the healthcare system, training for healthcare professionals to address women's health concerns, funding for research on diseases which affect women only, funding for women's literacy and education programs intended to help women re-enter the workforce after pregnancy or immigration, funding for women's sports, sexual assault victim services, social workers who can deal with eldery or disabled women living alone, that sort of thing. These qualify as "programs", whereas the stuff being sliced off the SOWs was largely lobbying for women at the expense of men.

Like men, women have legitimate needs specific to their gender, and in a western country like Canada with broad-reaching welfare/health programs for its citizens, it is only logical that there should be programs for BOTH genders. My complaint (and I speak only for myself) is NOT that the government is spending too much on women. It's that the government is spending too much of my tax money on women ONLY.

This is radically different from what is being cut off the SOWs. They had lobbyists on staff who used tax dollars to lobby the government for a specific feminist/Marxist agenda. They had "court challenges" programs, where the taxpayer picked up the tab so women could sue the country when their feelings were hurt! That kind of stuff needed to go. The programs which actually serve the legitimate needs of women, I'm all for, provided they're matched by programs for men. (Not that this kind of equality will happen any time soon - we're all predators and rapists and oppressors and stuff, as far as the bureaucrats are concerned, so there's a fight ahead.)

It's fascinating to listen to the squealing from women in the media and government about these perfectly reasonable cuts to the SOW's man-hate trough: and the manhaters accuse US of complaining because WE'RE "selfish bastards"/"oppressors" and WE'RE losing some imaginary "privileges" to women! The only reason they're complaining is because some moron decided the government should pay for THEIR pet political cause 35 years ago. Sounds like "selfishness" and a "privilege" to me. To the women who are complaining, I say: HA! Pot? Kettle? Meet Black!

These programs (for both women and men) are totally wrong from the very beginning. The principle on which they are founded and applied is _"gendercentrism"_. Since this principle came into wide use - the society began to become more and more split. Such things as "pre-natal screening" and "family planning" must be called "pre-natal screening" and "family planning". Not "Women's Programs". When a mention of sex is placed at the center of a program - the program begins to grow like a snowball and to ramify into many more programs most of which don't have any relation to the woman's health.

I think that when the friend's wife, mentioned above, said that she is "horrified by cutting the women's programs" - it's for certain, that she didn't mean things like the pre-natal screening. No one would ever try to cut such programs. "Women's Programs" is an umbrella brand invented for the promotion of feminism and misandry by hiding it behind things like the pre-natal screening.

We all know the these feminist groups offer nothing to society (except spreading misandry). They don't offer one legitimate issue to justify any funding. They should be grateful they've survived this long.

They continually use the fallacy of the wage gap.

Domestic abuse is a crime prevention issue. These organizations aren't solving domestic violence, they simply perpetuate lies for more government protection.

It seems these feminists are trying so hard to find any issue to keep their hate group from dissipating like a fart in the wind. They essentially want governement funding to hate. Maybe Neo-Nazi groups will petition the govt. for money.

anthony

The article states that of SOW's $23 million their budget is being cut by $5 million -- i.e. 22%.

What I think is going on here is the termination of a feminist pork-barrel patronage system that has paid for the salaries and storefront "SOW Center" rent for about 100 feminist parasites scattered across the rural grasslands and tundra.

(I'm assuming about $50,000 a year for the SOW-bimbos who run a local women's advocacy scam.)

If Canada can incrementally shut down a $23 million a year feminist hate agency, is it possible that the same legal and political and accounting weapons can be used to terminate VAWA in FemAmerika?

A 22% hit on VAWA would shut down a whole lot of the feminist industry in the anti-family courts system, and maybe disappear a few feminist professors as well.

Can we hire a Canadian consultant while the exchange rates are still favorable? ;-)

All the Status of Women offices, with their consistent one-sided biased views, lies, hidden war on males etc can burn in hell forever. 'Nuff said!