Tories shutting down Status of Women offices

CBC News

House Member
Sep 26, 2006
2,836
5
38
www.cbc.ca
The Conservative government is closing down most of its Status of Women Canada offices, saying they are not doing enough to serve women directly.

More...
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
I'd have to agree with that; like most of these gov't offices, the only women they actually help are the ones employed in the office. As far as accomplishing anything concrete, I'd say their score was pretty low.
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
I'd have to agree with that; like most of these gov't offices, the only women they actually help are the ones employed in the office. As far as accomplishing anything concrete, I'd say their score was pretty low.


I agree as well. The office is one of those partisan departments that seems to create more "goobley-gook" than action.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Good - stop separating the genders in advancement of all concerns.

Women do wonderfully in volunteerism as well as making things happen - and work best in community effort where they can act on a one-to-one basis, seeing the results of their labor.

Regarding workplace inequities - this is an issue which should be addressed by both men and women rather than keeping it a woman's battleground - Workforce job descriptions should be as close as possible
to non-gender, with salaries quoted applicable for both.

I think most men and women have exchanged roles in the workplace within reason to satisfy equality in
salaries for same work done. If some companies are still locked into the sixties - address them directly - we don't have to have an expensive bureaucracy sitting on their duffs making speeches about it and taking meetings to justify their roles.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Good - stop separating the genders in advancement of all concerns.

Women do wonderfully in volunteerism as well as making things happen - and work best in community effort where they can act on a one-to-one basis, seeing the results of their labor...

There it is right there. I've been waiting for it. The artificial alliance of libertarian economics and reactionary fundamentalist christianity that expects the heavy lifting when it comes to dealing with social inequities to be carried by individuals on a voluntary basis; pining for the return of the feudal welfare system, such as it was.

Men on average still earn 61% more than women. To think equity abounds is more the result of attitudes that flourish in ignorant bourgois affluence than reality.

Harper is taking advantage of the general misunderstanding the public has regarding the nature of "women's advocacy". The beauty of it for him is if the public servants who understand the work because they do it try to inform the taxpayers what it is they actually do he can always shut them up like he has with the Wheat Board. Force them to speak from the fringes where no one will listen. No danger there.

During yesterday's Statements by Members, Judy provided a prime example of the real impact this slash-and-burn populism is actually having...


Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North said:
Mr. Speaker, no one can dispute the importance of helping low income Canadians to acquire the tools they need to move out of poverty. For women, increased financial knowledge and skills building rank high among those tools.

In Winnipeg's north end, the women and money project has been providing these tools to women since 2000, from basics such as getting identification papers and navigating through financial forms, to training in job skills and valuable work experience. The women and money project has been a great success, or it had been until the Conservatives cut off its funding, part of the government's offensive against any measure that empowers women.

Winnipeg North just celebrated the opening of the Community Financial Services Centre, a groundbreaking initiative and the first of its kind in Canada that will provide access to financial services, counselling and micro-loans to those abandoned by big banks and left to the mercy of payday lenders. This is a testament to the power of a community to rise above all odds in the face of big money interests.

We cannot allow the women and money project to die. The government must reinstate its funding.

Let's not forget the Institute for Canadian Values is cheering.

What's been done in the name of Jesus... :eek:
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Men still earn on average 61% more than women? Where do these stupid statements come from? I don't know of any industry or workplace in Ontario where women and men work alongside each other and get paid differently. If you're a woman and work at GM, you get the same rate as fellow male workers in your unit. If you're a teacher you get exactly the same as a male with the same qualifications and position. If you work in the corner pizza shop you get the same rate as male workers and you'll get the same bump come additional experience.
There's a lot of lyin' going on here. I assume the dicks that collect these stats will do a blanket comparison and add the number of balls and divide it by the players. That's ridiculous. The point remains to look at individuals actually on the job and see if there is wage discrimination on the job itself. I haven't seen it. If you're going to lump in welfare moms, sit-at-home-and-do-nothing girls and part-time workers - by choice - women and then think you're going to make an empirical observation, good luck! It's all nonsense.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
... Men on average still earn 61% more than women. ... :eek:

"Canadian women are still only earning 71 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts". (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=e48307e4-9f6f-4e41-975e-af6c3dcb3925 )
According to my calculations, which may be wrong, that means men on average earn 40% more than women.
71/100 = 100/x --> 71x = (100)(100) --> x = 10000/71 = 140 so if women earn 100% then men earn 140% (which of course doesn't make any sense percentage wise) but men earn 40% more than women.

"The blow is part of a cost-cutting program announced in September that will see the agency lose $5 million from it's $23-million annual budget over two years."

I'd sure like to see what they're going to do with that $18 million dollars over the next 2 years. I have no problem with the funds being cut and would really like to see a public audit of their expenses. It would also be interesting to see how the stats for the inequity in salaries are calculated, because that number doesn't seem to be much different than it was 30 years ago (although I don't have time to research it right now). If it isn't much different than say even 20 years ago, then maybe all their funding should be cut because they're obviously not making any difference.
 
Last edited:

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Men still earn on average 61% more than women? Where do these stupid statements come from?...

Its called CANSIM. I try to rely on primary sources.

Geography=Canada
Earnings=Female-to-male earnings ratio (percent)
Work activity2=All earners
2000 61.7
2001 62.1
2002 62.8
200362.9
200463.5A
Source: Statistics Canada

notice a trend?

anyone else care to nitpick?
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
Its called CANSIM. I try to rely on primary sources.

Geography=Canada
Earnings=Female-to-male earnings ratio (percent)
Work activity2=All earners
2000 61.7
2001 62.1
2002 62.8
200362.9
200463.5A
Source: Statistics Canada

notice a trend?

anyone else care to nitpick?

What is "work activity 2"? It goes to a page that requires a password. I would be happy to nitpick all day ... but gotta run so I can earn somewhere around 71% of what men earn (although I don't believe it's true in my job).
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
2. Both earners and non-earners undertake work activity. Earners work full-year full-time; full-year part-time; part-year full-time; or part-year part-time. Non-earners include unpaid workers.

There's little doubt in my mind the imbalance in economic independence this represents will be willingly attributed to women being in their place by some if not many. Not I.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Female bus drivers earn exactly the same money as their male counterparts, as do female letter carriers, police officers, and any other job we might care to mention. There is no way any employer could pay women less than men doing the same job. If they could, what would stop employers from simply hiring all women..............it would make sense...
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Perhaps in jobs where you negotiate your salary this might be an issue, but it is not the governments business to dictate negotiated salaries. I'm sure the Status of Women dept doesn't agree...nor Bit here.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Female bus drivers earn exactly the same money as their male counterparts, as do female letter carriers, police officers, and any other job we might care to mention. There is no way any employer could pay women less than men doing the same job. If they could, what would stop employers from simply hiring all women..............it would make sense...

well gee, Juan. you might be on to something there.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Perhaps in jobs where you negotiate your salary this might be an issue, but it is not the governments business to dictate negotiated salaries. I'm sure the Status of Women dept doesn't agree...nor Bit here.

You are probably right. Negotiated salaries generally end up at whatever the market will bear based on a person's qualifications.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
why don't you wait until you have something intelligent to say for a change instead of making crap up and throwing it at people?

Your not one to talk there, Bit.

Besides I don't think I'm far off the mark here.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
BitWhys, what Tamarin said is still valid, and you're stats do nothing to address her criticisms. Thats a ratio of all workers. To look at the parity you have to compare like to like.

What percentage of families have male sole providers? A useful stat would be to look at various industries and look at the composition of the workforce by gender, then look at the ratios for pay.
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
The status for Women gets 25 million dollars and how do they mete out the monies? I'm sure there are some great programs that will be axed but shouldn't Harper or one of his ministers looked into the programs that were funded by the Status for Women to ensure that quality programs don't get axed so the Elite that run this organization can financially support their buds? So is it the Government closing the offices or the Status for women tightening their greedy belts?

Regarding women making less money in the work force, bloody poppy cock. I negotiate my daily rate with a perspective client, and I assure you I don't make less than my male counterparts. Canada has laws visa vie the Labour Act and the Human Rights Commision to ensure that women are treat equally in the work force the status for women is an "Old Girls" organization and the hogs that work there time is up at the slop bucket. :pukeright:
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
ok

that's three for "women in their place" and one for "bourgois complacency".

anyone else?