Ban She: Rona Ambrose on M312

I'm going to do two things with this post, one will be brief and the other will be more in-depth.

First, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth's motion calling for a debate on the commencement of life was defeated in House of Commons on Wednesday night 203-91. Woodworth himself didn't think that the motion would get much support and he was right. Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself voted against the motion. And, we all know where the Opposition stands.

Second, the vote that really encountered a whirlwind of vitriol, alarm, and overall frenzy was that of Minister for the Status of Women Rona Ambrose who voted in favour of the motion. NDP MP Libby Davis rightfully called for her resignation. In fact, in the House of Commons the next day, when Ambrose answered a question from the Opposition, she brought up the point that it had been the first time in over the year that she was questioned about her role as Minister of Status of Women. She claims it's because she was doing a good job. The Opposition responded with, "you're useless." And, the NDP is right. Harper has rendered the Minister of Status of Women as a meaningless position, one so small that it can be held alongside another, more "important" position like public works. Reputable women's group has decried this government's actions on women's equality and rights and that's because it is, as I detailed in this post here.

Ambrose is entitled to believe what she wants but she should really consider what her position entails. As Minister of Status of Women, she is more than just the embodiment of a decorum position, occupying space in photo-ops and tweeting about her experiences. She is supposed to be the minister who is in charge of advancing women's rights in Canada. And, as far as I can tell, she hasn't, in fact, been doing a good job. It's only made worse when you have Conservative-sympathizers at the National Post critiquing the Ambrose's critics. 

To isolate that National Post article, it left me absolutely stunned. That article is not a defense of Ambrose's feminism or feminism in general in any way shape or form. It simply is not. Want proof? The columnist said Ambrose is "a better kind of feminist" than the women who rightfully critique her for voting in favour of the committee. That notion is completely and utterly regressive and flat-out dumb. It shows feminism as a type of skill or challenge that some are more capable of doing than others: "these women here are bad at feminism, and these women here are good at feminism." She is absolutely divisive and counter-intuitive when discussing feminism which is supposed to be about the empowerment of all women. The wonderful, wonderful Canadian feminist blog GenderFocus offers a great rebuttal to the backlash of the backlash.

By limiting the options of women, Ambrose does not do justice to her position. To call for her resignation, however, would be futile and just standard Parliamentary procedure. But, she needs to be held account for what her vote entailed and what it meant to the current Canadian psyche regarding feminism and reproductive rights. The popular claim pushed by the Conservatives is that Ambrose was spreading advocacy over sex-selection abortion, a practice that occurs around the world and in Canada among immigrants.

As a feminist, I believe sex-selection abortion is wrong (duh). The solution, then, wouldn't necessarily be to put bans on abortion and infusing it with more inaccessibility. That would hurt many women, mostly young, low-income, minority women. The solution would be to foster more empowerment among women all over the world -- starting with Canada. Canada should be a country that would set the example for more countries to follow when it comes to treatment of women. Canada should be the country that helps more women in countries where they normally would be subjugated to abuse and oppression.

But, we're not. We have an ample amount of opportunity to grow and prosper, here. But, we're not the country we should be -- or could be -- when it comes to protecting women's rights. And one of the biggest barriers seems to be the Minister for the Status of Women herself.

Feminist-In-Chief: Obama, Empowering Women, and the DNC

To be blunt, the Democrats put on a successful convention, one better than the Republicans on most regards. Note when I say "most" because, to be fair, speeches given at the Republican convention were actually pretty good. As I pointed out in my post about the RNC, Ann Romney gave a truly moving speech about her husband and likewise Chris Christie gave a fiery address that prompted presidential buzz. But, speeches at the RNC were marred with inconsistencies and blatant lies. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention were not, at least not at the level the RNC was. In fact, not only were the speeches brilliant and rousing, but they were also substantive and focused on the main goal: convincing the American public that President Barack Obama deserves a second term.

The Jobs Report which was released Friday is, I think, the most fitting conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. The report shows exactly how much progress the Obama Administration made and will surely resonate more with Americans than a speech or tribute video. In August, the US economy added 96,000 jobs meaning that August is the 30th month of consecutive job growth. That's not bad considering the Republicans won't collaborate with Obama under any circumstances. That's not bad considering that the GOP shot down the Jobs Act last year which was estimated to create over 2 million jobs. However, 96,000 jobs are not enough to make a significant dent on the unemployment rate. That would take approximately 250,000 jobs to do that. But, the jobs report does prove that the Obama Administration does not hate the private sector since, according to Think Progress, 103,000 jobs were created. It also shows that Obama still has a long way to go to convince the American people that the economy will revive itself. The Jobs Report is not abysmal since it actually is an improvement from the US economy exactly 4 years ago, when it collapsed dramatically due to the stock market crash and the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. If anything, the Jobs Report is sobering to the Obama campaign and the Democrats amid the post-convention frenzy.

However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.

This is why.

The Convention did a great job of emphasizing the highlights of Obama's mandate and did an even better job of dispelling common myths propagated last week at the RNC. A number of speakers directly quoted speeches made in the week before in Tampa and then told the audience the truth. The truth being that the GM plant Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan was talking about actually closed in 2008 under Bush. The truth being that the Affordable Care Act cuts money away from corporations to cut fraud in the health care system, not remove solvency from MediCare as much as the Republicans like to tout. The truth being that Obama has created more private sector jobs than the GOP would like to admit. The truth being that Obama cannot solely be blamed for the economic calamity that is occurring in America but the work he has done as rectification has been impressive. The truth being that it doesn't take just 4 years to get America back on track, something that Obama himself said in his 2009 inauguration speech. 

What the convention did most of all was to undergird the campaign with more optimism. The attacks on Ryan and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney were present, of course. They have to be. But, the overall direction of the campaign was more focused on supporting the President and Vice President opposed to attacking the other side. Unlike his opponent, Obama refrained from criticizing Romney by name. A wise move as most people have chided the Obama campaign time and time again for being largely negative. 

But, of course, no political convention could be complete if there wasn't some speculation about potential presidential candidates for 2016. For the Democrats, they have a sizable playing field: San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick are some of the most prominent and qualified. However, instead of giving narcissistic speeches for the campaign in coming years, they gave gracious speeches that were autobiographical in tone but supportive for Obama in heart. Unlike Christie, the keynoter for the RNC, whose speech rife with 2016 hints.

Although, that doesn't mean that the Democratic National Convention wasn't tact since it reaped the benefits from the oversights made in the RNC. For instance, the DNC are now unequivocally the party of gay rights. According to the Democrats, it's not about sexual orientation anymore. It's about "who you love," thereby spreading a much more positive issue that would render the topic of same-sex marriage as hard to refute. The Democrats seized and pounced on the opportunity to mention veterans and the troops fighting in Afghanistan, something that the Republicans didn't do at all. A military mom, Jill Biden gave a pleasant speech about her son in combat. Michelle Obama, whose speech was phenomenal, was introduced by a military mom as tribute to Obama and Biden's work for military families. Tammy Duckworth is now a Democratic Senatorial candidate who is placing military and veteran issues on the table.

And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.

This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.

First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.

Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.

As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:

Indeed, we know we are better off when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of American life — whether it’s the salary you earn or the health decisions you make.

After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world. 

My first piece of advice is this: Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table. 

No woman’s signature graced the original document — although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the ears of the founding fathers.

So think about what that means to a young Latina girl when she sees a Cabinet secretary that looks like her. (Applause.) Think about what it means to a young girl in Iowa when she sees a presidential candidate who looks like her. Think about what it means to a young girl walking in Harlem right down the street when she sees a U.N. ambassador who looks like her. Do not underestimate the power of your example. 

Those are just some of the things Obama said in his speech at Barnard. Now, for his speech at last week's Democratic Convention:

We believe the little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States, and it’s in our power to give her that chance. 

If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void ... [like] Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should be making for themselves. 

The young woman I met at a science fair who won national recognition for her biology research while living with her family at a homeless shelter, she gives me hope.

Romney didn't have anything like this in his speech nor did any other speaker talk so candidly about advancing the rights of women. But, as Republicans are quick to point out, issues like women's rights "don't matter" since they're not as "important" as the economy. Well, the Republicans are not in the position to comment on the economy since they are, in fact, the party responsible for the calamity. Moreover, to dismiss women's issues is to dismiss issues that directly affect half of the US population. To say that prosperity only depends on finances is completely myopic and negligent. No longer do we live in a time where women's issues are contained in a box only to be opened when the debate is heated. Now, we live in a time where women's issues are everyone's issues.

And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.

Akin to Disgust

Republican Representative Todd Akin said some pretty heinous comments over the weekend regarding rape. I mean, they were downright false and insulting to women everywhere. For those of you unaware, here are all the things wrong with Todd Akin's comments:

1. The female body does not secrete a substance or withhold fertilization or somehow stop eggs from producing when faced with rape.

2. Akin said in cases of "legitimate rape." Then, what constitutes as illegitimate rape? When she actually becomes pregnant, according to Akin's pretzel logic? When she is drugged? When she is unconscious? When she is a minor? 

3. That abortion should not be granted to rape victims, period. Although, this is pretty much the common sentiment among the GOP, including Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

4. That Akin is a man who thinks he knows better than women as to the decisions she should make when faced with the awful trauma of rape. 

I could go on and on about how Akin is just fundamentally wrong.* I could also elucidate on the Republican agenda on abortion and reproductive rights. But, instead, I want to focus on Akin's response to this whole debacle which is his decision to stay in the race for the Senate seat in Missouri against incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill. She is, in fact, fighting for him to stay despite members of his own party -- like Republican National Committee President Reince Priebus -- to drop out. This is a shrewd move by her, but a logical one. By fighting for Akin to stay in, she ultimately wins. Voters are then confronted by the choice of the incumbent -- who usually has a greater chance of winning anyways -- and a crazy Republican who believes in different forms of rape. McCaskill wins and she continues to help President Barack Obama and the Democrats. 

I'm siding with McCaskill, here. He should stay in. When he apologized for his comments, he merely apologized for the words he said not for the position he holds. So, of course, if Akin truly believes in these ideas of "legitimate rape" and the female body's ability to stop fertilization when raped, he should still be in and let voters decide what they want. And, if voters in Missouri decide they want to cast their ballot for Akin over McCaskill, then that would prove two things:

1. That Akin is emblematic of the mainstream Republican party and that there are no more moderate Republicans left in the fold since people are now demanding for the extreme and vitriolic. 

And 2. That America is in serious, serious trouble.


*I mean, when conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh sounds more coherent and more logical than you, there's an issue.

'Don't Let Them Tell You It Can't Be Done': Humanizing Jack Layton

On August 22nd, Canadians everywhere will most likely be confronted with the news of the one year anniversary of Jack Layton's death. The out pour of emotion will not be as strong as it was, nor will Canadians of all political stripes converge in the public quorums and spaces in their community to celebrate a man they probably never knew. When happened in the wake of his death was probably a testament to Layton's likeability factor and eagerness on the campaign trail to fix the 'big problems' of government and to fight for the everyday man or woman. These were undoubtedly ideas that resonated with people. Well, enough people to grant Layton and his party, the NDP, Official Opposition status in the Canadian government. Although his political achievements are worthy of observance and appraisal -- most notably, fighting for gay rights, establishing greener infrastructure complete with a sound emphasis on cycling lanes in Toronto, putting homelessness on the map, and passing a motion calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops in Afghanistan -- his work outside the political realm are just as bold and just as noble.*

But, before I get to that, I'll make one thing clear about Layton, something that I think gets overlooked when discussing his legacy, especially among NDP supporters: Jack Layton was a politician.

What this means is that sometimes he did things that only served his political interests. I'm referring specifically to the time Layton worked with current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take down then-Liberal Prime Minster Paul Martin in 2005. However, to say that Layton effectively caused the Tories to take power in 2006 is a complete mistruth and myopic understanding of the ideas at hand. Of course, he didn't cause it. Canadians had a choice and they "chose" Harper.  (Note: 'Chose' is enclosed with quotations because the Conservatives only won approximately 40% of the seats when only close to 67% of Canadians voted.) But, Layton made a strictly political move in that election since taking down the Liberals meant the possibility for more NDP seats -- which then became a reality when the NDP jumped from 18 seats to 29, right below the Bloc Québecois. And, having more seats -- along with his alliance with the PM -- meant that more NDP-supported initiatives, like the National Child Care program and the Kelowna Accord were finally up for discussion.

But, as I pointed out in my last post, the National Child Care program was eliminated by Harper. The Kelowna Accord, which would provide funding to education, youth services, health care, housing, and other initiatives to Aboriginal Communities, was gutted.

Obviously, by siding with the Tories, Layton made a political move to gain more seats so that he and his party could make more of an impact in the House of Commons. Consequently, he would produce more vocal changes for "hard-working Canadian families." Or, so he thought. That said, I have to stress this point, Layton did not get the Tories elected. He simply made a shrewd political choice in order to further his own standing. And, that happens routinely in politics. A shrewd political choice doesn't necessarily sour the entire legacy of a political leader, but it's certainly worthy of discussion and may render that political leader back to "humanly" state after widespread belief of that leader as an infallible Demi-god.

Jack Layton was not a Demi-god. In fact, he was far from it. He was a man with strong ideals and principles with a genuine belief in the goodness of society, and he displayed those beliefs with such exuberance that it was hard not to like him.

One of his greatest accomplishments, I think -- and one that is certainly overlooked when reflecting on his life-- is his work for the eradication of violence against women.

In 1991, Layton with the help of a determined group of men comprised of members like Michael Kaufman and Ron Sluser, helped start the White Ribbon Campaign. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the charitable initiative, the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) is the most prominent NGO run by men whose aim is to end violence against women all over the world. What started as a makeshift office in Layton's son's bedroom grew into a full-fledged organization making a difference in over 55 countries. Layton and the rest of the WRC were inspired to start the campaign after being confronted by the tragedy of the 1989 Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal where 14 women were killed by a deranged gunman. The gunman, when he entered in the classroom, requested that the women be separated by the men and then let the men go unharmed. The women, of course, who were studying to be engineers, were shot at point-blank. The aftermath prompted discussion after discussion on Canada's gun control laws and mental health assessments. Of course, the notion of what it means to be masculine in Canada came up and instead of cowering away from the public eye, Layton and his colleagues stood up and created the WRC on behalf of all men everywhere to assist and protect women, Canadian and otherwise.

Layton believed in the campaign with such passion and enthusiasm that he put his own house on collateral to finance the charity and move it out of Mike Layton's bedroom.

The WRC is certainly a powerful movement, educating young men and boys on the importance of respecting women and by ending the silence among men on their attitudes towards violence against women. The WRC was a game-changer. It proved that men care about this issue and fight for this issue. That's not to say that the work of other groups formed by women are less important because they are not. In any way. However, it showed that Canadian men -- and men around the world involved with the campaign -- were committed in challenging the preconceived notions of a monolithic definition of masculinity. The WRC is a vibrant example that women's issues are also everyone's issues: family issues, safety issues, and societal issues that everyone should respect.

Sadly, Layton never got a chance to confront Harper about the decline of women's rights in Canada under his tenure as Leader of the Official Opposition. There's reason to believe that Layton would've been aghast at Harper's record as it is the antithesis of everything Layton believes in. In order to truly observe, revere, and celebrate Layton and his legacy, the NDP must remember to keep fighting for Canadian women, either by increasing the funding toward the Status of Women or by making a plan to narrow and eventually eliminate the pay gap between men and women.

I'll conclude with something that Layton himself said about advancing the role of women in Canada from his book Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians:

Instead of just one ministry dedicated to keeping an eye on issues of particular concern for women (which frankly could be rendered powerless), think of the impact women's perspectives would have if they were completely integrated into the decision-making of all institutions, whether the House of Commons, government departments, or major corporations. Imagine what society would look like if the decisions about priority spending and program design, for example, all had to run through the filter of "How will this affect women?" Then the systemic discrimination that women face would begin to get the attention needed for real change to happen.**

*Regarding Layton's achievements, I actually could go on...
**Layton Jack, Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians, (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2006).

No She Can't: The Harper Government and REAL Women of Canada

This past primary season generated a lot vitriol towards women and women's issues, predominantly abortion and birth control. Commentators, pundits, and politicians alike have decried the Right for waging a War on Women. Some critics even suggested that the current mindset of the modern-day Republican Party lies within the Middle Ages -- enter Rick Santorum.

In Canada, we've had our own flirtation with regression when it came to women's rights. This Spring, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth proposed re-opening the debate on abortion and the right to life. Of course, a heavy stream of opposition headed his way and rightfully so. Since 1988, Canadian women have the right to terminate their pregnancy as part of their Charter right to security of the person. This was probably one of the most significant and famous Supreme Court rulings in recent history as it not only shows the potency of the newly-entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the progression of Canada as a whole.

Woodworth encountered the frustration and disapproval from women's groups who held demonstrations and protests in cities across Canada. Women took to social media by storm, flooding Woodworth’s Facebook and Twitter accounts with details of their reproductive health. Despite all of this dissent, the story is far from being over. A recent article in The Globe and Mail states that doctors who are members of the Canadian Medical Association want to squash any "backdoor" deals made by Woodworth to table his proposal. Although part of his caucus, Stephen Harper himself didn't back the motion -- M312 -- but stated that MPs are allowed to propose legislation pieces.

So, this brings me to a question: How has the Harper government contributed to the progression of women and women’s rights in Canada?

First, it's important to assess the amount of women MPs currently holding seats in the House of Commons.

The election in 2011 saw an unprecedented amount of women elected into office -- out of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, 76 are occupied by female MPs. Most noteworthy is Elizabeth May, the leader of the Federal Green Party, who finally secured a seat after years of working in politics. Despite having one seat, her presence has been most influential considering her role in the Budget Amendments. Moreover, most of the female MPs were from the NDP, now the Official Opposition mostly due to Jack Layton's performance in Quebec. Out of the 102 NDP MPs elected in the 2011 election, 40 of them are women.

The record-breaking number of women MPs -- from all political stripes -- is indeed encouraging. But, we still have a long way to go. According to Equal Voice, an organization committed to bridging the gender gap in the political process, Canada ranks 40th in Inter-Parliamentary Union. However, the NDP has demonstrated a commitment to encourage more women to run for pubic office. Two women -- MPs Niki Ashton and Peggy Nash -- were contenders for the leadership position for the NDP this past Spring. And, NDP leadership candidate and current MP for Ottawa Centre Paul Dewar proposed his strategy to advance women's involvement in politics and entreprise during his campaign. You can read the whole plan here, wonderfully titled, "A Woman's Place: At the Heart of Our Democracy, Our Economy, Our Communities, and Our Future."

As noble and progressive this plan is, it's difficult to assess as to whether it would actually work and operate successfully. Nonetheless, it's more than the Tories can say.

Speaking of which, out of the 167-member Conservative caucus that currently holds the majority, only 28 of them are women. Harper's Cabinet, which is composed of 37 other Members of Parliament, only nine are women. Nine! Contrast that with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's Shadow Cabinet where 17 female MPs are poised to be a part of the cabinet, if given a majority.

In terms of what Harper has done to advance women's rights in Canada, the results are very disappointing. As soon as Harper took office, he made significant drawbacks to programs and facilities that help Canadian women in several, several ways. To wit:
- Effectively eliminating the $1B National Child Care program, bolstering evidence that Canada is one of the most regressive countries when it comes to early children's education.
- Moreover, maternal care is at a dangerous level for Canada right now as more and more women die while giving birth. In fact, a woman giving birth in Bosnia and Herzegovina has a better chance at surviving than in Canada.
- Halting funding for the Sisters in Spirit database for Aboriginal Women in Canada who are missing
- Closing 12 out of 16 offices for the Status of Women Canada
- Cutting $1M for a research fund sponsored by the Status of Women Canada
- Didn't improve pay equity for women despite making it one of his campaign promises
- Increasing the age of retirement and cutting back on OAS when approximately 17% of senior women are living below the poverty line
- Slashing public sector jobs which has proven to offer more equitable pay rates for women than private sector jobs

You can read more detailed descriptions of the cuts and how they impact the lives of Canadian girls and women here, here, and here.

Probably one of the most telling and harrowing outcomes of major blowbacks to social assistance programs for women is an inability for them to reach out to their community and seek for help. Especially if they're in dire need like an abusive relationship, for example. In the early to mid nineties, when Ontario was under Conservative rule with PC Premier Mike Harris, a 1996 report issued by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses suggested that 66% of women stayed in an abusive relationship simply because they did not have enough access to social assistance.* That's just across a province. Imagine the entire country, devoid of any assistance programs to help and protect its own citizens. 

However, there is a group of women who are fiercely and proudly Conservative. In fact, they are REAL Women of Canada -- whatever that's supposed to mean. According to their official website, their view runs counter to that of "established feminist groups" and seeks to emphasize that the "family is the most important unit in society." Although this NGO -- which claims to be non-partisan, by the way -- wants to progress women in the workplace, its real goal is to focus the debate back on the woman's role as the primary care provider for children and the family. In fact, they call themselves "pro-family."

I'm not too sure what constitutes as "anti-family." Working? Common-law relationships? Same-sex relationships? Abortion?

Well, REAL Women seem to oppose a woman's right to choose, believing that a woman should care for each member of her family, born or unborn. Using anti-feminist rhetoric, REAL Women claim that it is feminists themselves who are the oppressors in this issue, not the other way around.

On Same-Sex Unions, REAL Women are not in favour of them, arguing that they are not a real relationship because the union could never spawn children. I have to say, most of what's reported in this newsletter on same-sex relationships is pretty disgraceful. I mean, suggesting that homosexual couples are inherently unfaithful, unwilling to commit, and are just plain not real, is insulting to a significant amount of women, approximately 3 472 married couples**, who this organization supposedly represents.

And REAL Women do not support common-law relationships, at all. Again, in their newsletter, REAL Women argue that common-law relationships are "not a safe place to be in, physically, financially, or emotionally." Of course, it's indisputable that there are tax benefits for the married, but to suggest that common-law relationships are noxious, especially when an increasing number of women, approximately half of all Canadian women between the ages of 20 to 29, decided to choose an alternative to marriage.

Lastly, REAL Women have a rather peculiar approach to equal pay for equal work and I feel that I should leave it to their own statement. From their position paper on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value:

We oppose, however, the new different concept of equal pay for work of equal value, which is a comparison of different jobs for several reasons...The equal value concept means government wage control, since the government bureaucracy is required to oversee and enforce the program -- rather than having wages reflect the forces of supply and demand -- in the marketplace, regulated by laws that ensure fairness to all.

So, REAL Women of Canada are essentially against their own interests with matters other than the family. Instead of fighting issues that would advance women -- like working, pay equity, abortion, common-law relationships -- they do the exact opposite and pine for a 1950s reality where women were routinely oppressed and discriminated against. When Harper released his budget in 2007, REAL Women of Canada championed the cuts, calling them a "good start." They claim that all the cuts inhibit the actions of feminists who do not represent the interests of real Canadian women. One of the main duties for the Status of Women in Canada is to fund and assist rape crisis facilities. But, remember, according to REAL Women of Canada, cutting these services is a good start.

So, we have a completely disastrous record from the Harper government and an equally absurd women's group who supports this government. Both of these issues are compounded by the fact that the Conservatives are not big fans of dissent -- at any level, and certainly not when it comes to women's rights. The Centre for Canadian Policy Alternatives*** have called the Conservatives and their assault on basic rights to free speech as "unprecedented in Canadian history" as women's services are defunded thereby limiting their right to speak out. Moreover, by tabling legislation like Public Sector Equitable Act, wages are determined by the "market demand" meaning women are competitively stacked up against men who are paid more anyways, sticking with discriminatory policies of the past. But, by eliminating the Court Challenges option, it's not like these women can oppose these antiquated payment policies.

Canadian women have certainly come a long way, making impact after impact with each turning decade. Prime Minsters, of course, have helped paved the way for all Canadian women seeking to achieve equality under the workplace and within their own lives. In 1993, Canada made history when PC Leader Kim Campbell became Prime Minster all for a mere four months. So, the seemingly impenetrable glass-ceiling that is still a burden to the United States has almost become chards for Canada.

But, not quite.

As mentioned before, we still have a long way to go. However, it doesn't seem like Harper and the REAL Women of Canada are helping us make any significant progress.


*Gordon Laird, Slumming It at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1998), 151.
**According to CBC, there are 7, 500 married same-sex couples in Canada, with 46.3% of them being marriage between two women. So, simple math was done to acquire that number.
***This piece in the CCPA is suggested reading.