Tories shutting down Status of Women offices

[CDNBear]

Why don't you try contributing something to the subject at hand.

I already have, you should apply the same thought to yourself. It's much like the pot calling the kettle black.

Seeing as you just like to come into a thread and think you know whats been said and by whom. Try starting at the beginning. Then try that again.

Or is it, I just hit the nail on your head?

 

[BitWhys]

Sure. Let's take the Anti-smoking bylaws. What do you suppose that has to do with gender? Are the status of women people going to fight for the rights of women to smoke at work but men can fend for themselves? Can you envision any way that anti-smoking bylaws are, or should be, gender specific?

How the hell would I know?

off the top of my head?

staff layoffs, maybe. safety issues as common routes get congested with smokers outside buildings. advantages for the pregnant. I dunno. not my turf.

conservative USED to mean stepping careful. now it just means tight-assed.

 

[CDNBear]

How the hell would I know?

off the top of my head?

staff layoffs, maybe. safety issues as common routes get congested with smokers outside buildings. advantages for the pregnant. I dunno. not my turf.

conservative USED to mean stepping careful. now it just means tight-assed.

No it means cutting and gutting liberal government largess.

 

[Ariadne]

How the hell would I know?

off the top of my head?

staff layoffs, maybe. safety issues as common routes get congested with smokers outside buildings. advantages for the pregnant. I dunno. not my turf.

conservative USED to mean stepping careful. now it just means tight-assed.

I think it's a good example of the previous post describing a lot of paper pushing ... the anti-smoking by-law as a gender issue is a non-issue, but since most people are going to assume that the SWAC knows what they're doing they're not even questioning what they're researching and publishing. It's a waste of money. Although there are valid needs, many of them can be managed by organizations like Immigrant Women's Association and other similar groups. If ASWAC is simply distributing the funds, are they distributing all $23 million or what percentage is given to organizations and what percentage is their overhead ... that's what I would like to know.

 

[Tonington]

If the cuts are going to stop those case studies, I can definitely see why this department is being cut. Seems those case studies involve issues allready covered by other government departmnets. Every government department out there would love to have more money to fund these studies, it creates work. I think our tax dollars can be speant on better things. Why on Earth do we need to study climate change in respect to it's effects on women?

 

[Ariadne]

If the cuts are going to stop those case studies, I can definitely see why this department is being cut. Seems those case studies involve issues allready covered by other government departmnets. Every government department out there would love to have more money to fund these studies, it creates work. I think our tax dollars can be speant on better things. Why on Earth do we need to study climate change in respect to it's effects on women?

It's no wonder all the reports are "to come" ... no one knows what they're supposed to write about that doesn't apply equally to men.

 

[Sassylassie]

Good god is that what they spend their days looking into, what a waste of office space and tax dollars.

 

[TenPenny]

If the cuts are going to stop those case studies, I can definitely see why this department is being cut. Seems those case studies involve issues allready covered by other government departmnets. Every government department out there would love to have more money to fund these studies, it creates work. I think our tax dollars can be speant on better things. Why on Earth do we need to study climate change in respect to it's effects on women?

Exactly. The whole point of these organizations is to generate reports and studies, which are mostly just summaries and restatings of academic studies already done. And I'm not picking on the status of women thing here, it's all of these vague offices. There are lots of them, and they accomplish very very little.

 

[Ariadne]

Good god is that what they spend their days looking into, what a waste of office space and tax dollars.

All of the gender based studies they are doing (to come, of course) are not gender specific issues. They are family issues. They don't pertain to immigrant, abused, uneducated, underpaid, or senior, women. The SWAC should stop whining while they are ahead. Drawing attention to themselves seems to be a bad idea, especially when it took about 5 minutes to discover one big absurdity. Perhaps Harper's team spent a day looking at what they were doing and about 3 minutes deciding that at least 5 million could be cut from their budget without any loss to anyone.

 

[BitWhys]

Absurd to you, that is. The way you dismissed my suggestions out-of-hand tells me you're more interested in badmouthing their efforts than actually finding the answers to all your questions.

all I'm hearing out of you is "don't know, don't care"

it may sound like nonsense to you but the research matters to people who are trying to form policy and it sure as hell matters to the waitress that misses her rent payment because things have gone slow at the bar.

here's some more "absurdity"...

SWC focuses its work in three areas: improving women's economic autonomy and well-being, eliminating systemic violence against women and children, and advancing women's human rights

women's human rights? [sarcasm]the nerve.[/sarcasm]

I know I know. you don't know what they do but you're sure they're doing it wrong. no doubt you've put a lot of thought into it, too.

 

[Ariadne]

Absurd to you, that is. The way you dismissed my suggestions out-of-hand tells me you're more interested in badmouthing their efforts than actually finding the answers to all your questions.

all I'm hearing out of you is "don't know, don't care"

it may sound like nonsense to you but the research matters to people who are trying to form policy and it sure as hell matters to the waitress that misses her rent payment because things have gone slow at the bar.

here's some more "absurdity"...


women's human rights? [sarcasm]the nerve.[/sarcasm]

I know I know. you don't know what they do but you're sure they're doing it wrong. no doubt you've put a lot of thought into it, too.

The SWAC is not doing anything to help the woman that can't pay rent. Should women have special privileges not available to men? Paying rent is a societal issue. If the woman is uneducated, there are many options starting with a student loan, some ambition and a few goals. This is not uniquely a female issue. Senior abuse is not a gender issue and, from what we've learned recently, neither is spousal abuse. Immigrant issues are not female gender problems. If 20 years of policy making didn't solve the problems, another $23 million every 2 years for another 20 years probably isn't going to make much more of a difference.

 

[BitWhys]

that's ignorant

that's all

just plain ignorant

if you honestly believe there's no gender specific issues that need to be dealt with and the "SWAC" isn't making a difference its only because you already chose to deliberately ignore and forget the very specific example I already gave and to not deal with it properly but rather simply (and simple-mindedly) step around it. enjoy the bliss.

 

[Ariadne]

that's ignorant

that's all

just plain ignorant

if you honestly believe there's no gender specific issues that need to be dealt with and the "SWAC" isn't making a difference its only because you already chose to deliberately ignore and forget the very specific example I already gave and to not deal with it properly but rather simply (and simple-mindedly) step around it. enjoy the bliss.

I've only posted in a couple of discussions and I've been told I'm unintelligent, biased, misinformed, unfeminine because of having "pissing contests" with males, simple minded, not dealing with things properly, ignorant and ... wow.

This is quite the ego trip!

Anyone want to discuss what the SWAC is doing to help women that can't pay rent on a waitress salary or is that something that is just thrown on the board to pave the way for another barage of not so gentle remarks about the character of posters. I really have to ask if this is how discussions happen in real life too, or is this debating tactic reserved for anonymous forum comments.

Back to the real meat of the thread ... You claim that the SWAC can do something to help the poor waitress. I simply can't see it. Could you perhaps articulate which organization, group or policy financed by the SWAC helps poor waitresses? Could you also please clarify why poor female waitresses need this assistance and why poor male waitors don't? Oh, and you don't need to tell me what you think of me again, I heard you the first time.:wave:

 

[BitWhys]

I've only posted in a couple of discussions and I've been told I'm unintelligent, biased, misinformed, unfeminine because of having "pissing contests" with males, simple minded, not dealing with things properly, ignorant and ... wow.

gee, I wonder why.

THIS specific example...

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

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.

 

[Ariadne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP)
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.

So am I understanding this correctly ... that funding was cut for the facility that provided career and financial counseling exclusively to women and then a facility was opened up that provided financial management counseling to the community, men included? Is this a bad thing?

 

[BitWhys]

So am I understanding this correctly ...

no

They are different types of services, BOTH driven by women and poverty experts and previously supported by SWAC because of who they benefit. The micro-loan program offers services to both genders but once those with an open mind learn the demographics of the area they realize easily the people it serves are disproportionately women. That's not out of trend as is actually unavoidable, which is why SWAC in part supported the individuals involved in getting it started. It has to do with understanding the cycle of poverty at least in small part as well, which is probably why Harper's voter base doesn't care.

 

[Jay]

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=173116

Ms. Jackie Claxton:
Thank you for your questions. I will begin with the exclusion of some groups from the Womens' Program.
Our guidelines are positive—we will provide committee members with a copy—because they list which groups are eligible as opposed to stating which ones are not. Eligible groups include women's groups and others that promote gender equality or women's equality, or even volunteer groups. We only fund volunteer groups, and not individuals. Nor do we provide funding to universities or to provinces. Because of the funding that is available to us, we have targeted mainly women's groups and other related groups.

We have no set definition of equality as it applies to women. We refer mainly to the Beijing platform for action and to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We deal with a wide range of groups, including older women, disabled women or aboriginal women. Each group has its own vision. We believe that it is important to identify the issues that relate to equality and that prevent these women from fully participating in Canadian society, be it from an economic, social, political, legal or other standpoint. That is my answer with respect to the groups that are excluded.

 

[Jay]

gee, I wonder why.

I know why....

 

[LittleRunningGag]

No it means cutting and gutting liberal government largess.

Big 'L' liberal, please. Small 'l' liberals are not neccessarily the same as the Party.

Bit, I think the biggest problem is that the Liberal Party has actually turned rather socialist on us, instead of leaving that to the Dipper's. Programs like the SoW don't actually do anything but do studies. They tend to be biased towards the party that will give them the most funding.

Keep in mind that this wasn't the only department cut. Like the SoW, many of them serve no real purpose, and are a waste of tax dollars that could be spent better paying down our debt.

 

[BitWhys]

... Programs like the SoW don't actually do anything but do studies ...

gah

another one who doesn't hesitate to step around the facts in order to spew presupposition.