This years CBA’s have again given rise to controversy. Last year the inclusion of a feminist category was considered unnecessary and this year it was included but was a complete farce. Commencing with the nomination of avowed feminist haters, continuing with a mysterious masked women’s studies minor slicing and dicing the nominiations dumping a true feminist (JJ) and including REAL women follower C4C and further continuing with Sask dumping again on women’s issues. So much of this devolves down to simplistic and erroneous assumptions of feminists being anti-child and anti-family. Which is anti-reality. The simple fact is that not everyone can or wants to stay home. In fact when it comes to the poor much is made about expecting single mothers or both parents to get out there and work. No mention is made of the lack of decent, licensed, affordable child care. Cutesy little scenarios of childcare choices while making terrific sappy little greeting cards do nothing to solve the issues for real families. I stayed home and raised 6 children and live in poverty because of it. Will receive no pension because of it. Many glurgy, gloppy sugary sweet fables are told of our love of family and children but this is simply not the case. Those who identify as Cons do not support daycare which is necessary for many families to survive. They do not support good strong social foundations that would allow women to stay home and raise their children should they so choose and not have to do so in a way that compromises their ability to clothe, house and feed said children or their ability to feed, clothe and house themselves in their senior years. They do not support maternity leave or father’s leave or any of a number of things which would show true support of family. They rave on about women taking time off to have children and thereby inconveniencing employers and making it less likely they are as up to date as their male counterparts and in the same breath deride women who do not want to have children, or who choose daycare for their children. The real message then is that women ought not to work at all, but should have children and then magically fart out the monies required to raise them. They don’t believe in abortion but also don’t believe they have any responsibility to the children they are feel are illegitimate.
Do not look to the Cons or con apologists for family friendly legislation. It is the feminists who fight for good quality daycare affordable to all. It is feminists who fight for maternity benefits. It is feminists who fight for children to be recognized as equal regardless of circumstances of birth.
Courtesans were well trained to provide their benefactors with a feeling of power, they stroked egos, manipulated and always appeared subservient even when leading the way. These are attributes that many con women have refined to an even higher art. And sadly many men still fall for it. And while they repeat the mantra of feminists as man haters the worst man haters I have known have been conservative religious women. The things they say about men would curl your hair, and the ways in which they undermine men is scary in it’s Machiavellianism, yet in conversation or relationship with them they are as sweet as cherry cheesecake. Similarly some of the worst mothers I have known as those that say that women belong in the home raising their children. The reason for this is that they do not even necessarily like children, they are merely responding to an ideology and expectation and when they find themselves trapped in a life they hate they respond with a misery loves company mentality trying to ensure that everyone is forced to be as unhappy as themselves.
Ultimately, debating feminism is like debating any other human rights, there are those that find a masturbatory satisfaction is doing so, however rights are not and should not be the subject of debate.
“with Sask dumping again on women’s issues. So much of this devolves down to simplistic and erroneous assumptions of feminists being anti-child and anti-family.”
I’m not debating the good of feminism. I’m asking if day care is the only and best way to give women the ability to earn a pension, or attain financial security for their family. The assumption by yourself appears to be that daycare is the only way. I think there are other ways, such as stay-at-home dads, government pensions for stay-at-home parents, government sponsored in-home nannies and day cares that meet demands, and probably dozens of other little things I haven’t heard or dreamed of.
And I don’t think feminism is anti-child or anti-family, only a Luddite who knows nothing of history would think that.
April Reign says
Ok well first I don’t get what Luddite’s have to do with anything,so will assume you are using that with liberal metaphorical license.
Second if all you see in what I wrote is that I think daycare is the only thing then you missed my point entirely. In fact you missed entire sentences such as this one
or the one which speaks to mat/pat leave. Perhaps a secondary perusal of the post is in order so you can actually –you know–READ it.