http://dawn.thot.net/rwoc_watch.html

page contents:

Liberal Party of Canada Press Release dd August 25, 2006
Conservatives Must Come Clean on Agenda for Status of Women Canada

LifeSiteNews.com, by Hilary White, dd August 14, 2006
Canadian Taxpayers Funding Radical Feminist Counter-Offensive
Federal agency determined to derail critics of its 33 year ideological crusade

Anti-Status of Women Canada Blogs dd August 25, 2006

LifeSiteNews.com, by Hilary White, dd August 25, 2006
Grassroots Blogger Reaction against Canada’s Status of Women Prompts Media Action
Public not aware feminist organization has been manipulating government since 1973

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada dd August 7, 2006
Counter-Attack by Feminists

LifeSiteNews.com dd July 20, 2006
R.E.A.L. Women file complaint against Ontario Chief Justice
The (un)R.E.A.L. Women of Canada clan are at it again ... Now they've filed a formal complaint against Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry with the Canadian Judicial Council, alleging judicial misconduct.

CBC News Viewpoint, Heather Mallick, dd June 30, 2006
Attack on feminism hurts women here and overseas

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada dd June 24, 2006
R.E.A.L. Women of Canada's lobby efforts to disband Status of Women Canada (SWC) and
the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (FEWO) || en français

DAWN Ontario dd April 20, 2006
Call for Letters in Support of Increased Funding for Women's Equality-Seeking Groups

DAWN Ontario dd April 25, 2006
Sample Letter in Support of Status of Canada Canada (SWC)

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada
Election 2005 And Its Aftermath

National Post Thu 06 Apr 2006 Issues & Ideas A22, Andrea Mrozek
Feminist activism -- paid for by you and me

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada Press Release dd Feb 15, 2006
Feminist Shell Game

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada newsletter, Issue Nov-Dec 2005
Feminism in Canada

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada newsletter, Issue Jan-Feb 2000
The Status of Women Must be Disbanded

Take ACTION: Send an email in support of SWC

.
edited to correct code

[ 26 August 2006: Message edited by: barb_anello ]

How very droll of them. They probably think they're incredibly brave for doing so. Yeeecchhh...

Love their use of "reporterette" to describe female journalists as well.

(on edit)Holy Jebus on a stick! they're also complaining about shelters for battered women being too "lavishly funded"?
(and then they have the nerve to claim that "half of all domestic violence is instigated by women".
Which means what, exactly? Half the time it's the battered wife's own fault for not having dinner on the table the moment hubby staggers in from the bar?)

(I know I'm male, and I'm sorry if anyone is offended by my presence here, but this is kind of personal for me as my late wife was abused by her earlier husbands and later went on to work as an advocate for other battered women in our town. I know that these people would make her, a tough Irish American Cafeteria Catholic, bounce off the friggin' ceiling with rage.)

[ 26 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 26 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

Can anybody help me understand what REAL women wants for women? It's clear enough they are against abortion, helping women in other countries, gay marriage and paying their taxes, but what do they want for women in Canada?

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
[QB]I read through a few of these links, not all of them.

Can anybody help me understand what REAL women wants for women? It's clear enough they are against abortion, helping women in other countries, gay marriage and paying their taxes, but what do they want for women in Canada?

[QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
Perhaps they don't look down in the shower?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Summer:
Isn't it obvious? They want all women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. In fact, someone should tell all those REAL bloggers to stop typing and get baking.

---

Yes, I understand that. But you don't need to join a group of like minded women and lobby the government to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen; all you need do is find the right man.

And the blogger bit is funny, yet a tad hypocritical no? It reminds me of Phyllis Schlafly who seems to have built a powerful career around .... well, telling other women that they should not have careers.

It seems as though these right wing conservatives might be engaging in *gasp* social engineering.

Alliance for Marriage & Family (AMF) seeks to protect family as ‘3-parents case’ seen as impacting definition of marriage

The AMF [composed of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), REAL Women of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship (EFC), Focus on the Family, and the Christian Legal Fellowship] has filed a factum in the so-called “three parents case,” saying its member groups have a “common cause” to protect the “traditional family unit in Canadian society and law.”

- - - -

Alliance for Marriage and Family (AMF) seeks to protect family as ‘3-parents case’ seen as impacting definition of marriage
by Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News
August 30, 2006

OTTAWA, Canada (CCN) – The Alliance for Marriage and Family (AMF) has filed a factum in the so-called “three parents case,” saying its member groups have a “common cause” to protect the “traditional family unit in Canadian society and law.”

The case, which comes before the Ontario Court of Appeal Sept. 25-26 in Toronto, involves a lesbian couple raising a child conceived by artificial insemination. Both women want to be considered the legal mother of the child. The biological father is also actively involved in the child’s life. If their case is successful, it will mark the first time a child would have three legally recognized parents.

The AMF, composed of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), REAL Women of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship (EFC), Focus on the Family, and the Christian Legal Fellowship, opposes the change on the basis that the law has always recognized two parents for a child.

“This is effectively providing an impetus for affirmation of multiple or group parenting rights,” said CCRL president Phil Horgan in a telephone interview with Canadian Catholic News.

“It fundamentally changes our fundamental understanding of family,” said REAL Women’s national vice president Gwen Landolt in a telephone interview with CCN.

Not only does the notion of three parents undermine the traditional notion of a mother and a father, but also it will open up a “Pandora’s box of complications,” Landolt said.

Read the rest of the article here

[ 30 August 2006: Message edited by: barb_anello ]

REAL Women Canada is a key partner in the alliance of social conservative groups which strongly supports the Conservatives. In this statement, REAL Women acknowledges that the future they have planned for us is something that will alarm Canadians. What is their agenda? Should we be alarmed?

"Social Conservatives to Sell Tory Daycare Plan", read the headline of a
Globe and Mail story on April 19, 2006. The Globe and Mail reported what
many in Canada may have known intuitively. On April 3, the day Parliament re-opened - the Conservative government had met with far right-wing groups to strategize around how to convince the public that a taxable $1200/year/pre-school child was preferable to setting-up a public system of early childhood learning and care. Their ideological base of support is really the far right. The most vocal critics of public child care come from small, fundamentalist religious-based groups; the Conservatives are relying on them to counter the voices of working families and child care advocates.

And they now have a direct link to the Prime Minister's office.

Read more at http://dawn.thot.net/rwoc_watch.html#clc

quote:

---

I don't understand what so many conservatives have against people having freedom.

---

I would suggest that this is simply a reflection of the top down hierarchical structure that has dominated human existence for eons. There will always be those people who fervently believe that "they know what is best for the rest of us" and are willing to ostracize, punish and even eliminate anyone that dares to challenge their "truth".

And the so-called left in Canada is no exception to this either.

It is a form of reality that is well supported in our political system, our family structures, the workplace and virtually every other venue we have. The only difference in this case is that the "righteous" are becoming a lot more strident than usual and we had a poster that dropped a whole whack of this rhetoric in our laps. Otherwise, we might not have heard any of it at all. Certainly not from the people i associate with anyways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by barb_anello:
If their case is successful, it will mark the first time a child would have three legally recognized parents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
(I know I'm male, and I'm sorry if anyone is offended by my presence here, but this is kind of personal for me as my late wife was abused by her earlier husbands and later went on to work as an advocate for other battered women in our town. I know that these people would make her, a tough Irish American Cafeteria Catholic, bounce off the friggin' ceiling with rage.)

---

I'm fairly certain that there is no recognition, in the eyes of the law, of parents in numbers greater than two.

And that this happens within a nation that is known internationally for its multi-culural diversity tells us that there are still sever limits on just how much diversity is really to be tolerated.

It sort of reminds me of the deep divide between logging families and environmentalist families which was occured in B.C. forest towns not so long ago. Often with much rancor, vandalism and even violence.

Now many from both groups have put aside their differences and are standing shoulder to shoulder trying to stop - or at least slow down - the clear cutting practices of the few real forested areas left here. But its just too late for such unity to gain them much now and even our parks have been put on the auction block for use by the big hotel chains.

[ 09 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Two divisons that are spending so much time and energy pointing fingers at each other rather than simply acknowledging that there is more than one way of living and being tolerant of that premise.

---

The thing is, otter, the two groups aren't "pointing fingers" at each other. I don't see feminists generally giving groups like REAL women much time, unless there's a good reason, like now, when REAL women is trying to undermine funding for women's groups. This is a survival issue, when women's groups and women's centres work on shoestring budgets as it is.

Feminists have much better things to do, and we're out there doing them. In this case, we've needed to rally against the push that REAL Women has inititated.

You can't seriously be arguing that the feminists should be trying even harder than they are to "reach out" to the REAL Women types when the REAL Women types, as I've just pointed out, refuse to grant that feminists are, in fact, "really" women?

I admire you idealism and envy your naivete here, but you are applying them to a reality where common ground is impossible due to the antifeminist side's complete intransigence.
There's a greater likelyhood that Bush will compromise with Iran than there is that antifeminists will acknowledge the common femality of feminists.

Now do you get it?

[ 09 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
What I was trying to tell you, otter, is that the whole "seeking common ground" thing doesn't work in the feminist vs. antifeminist thing, because the antifeminists will never work with it. One side can't seek the common ground by itself.

You can't seriously be arguing that the feminists should be trying even harder than they are to "reach out" to the REAL Women types when the REAL Women types, as I've just pointed out, refuse to grant that feminists are, in fact, "really" women?

---

quote:

---

Our objectives are as follows:

1. To reaffirm that the family is society’s most important unit, since the nurturing of its members is best accomplished in the family setting.
2. To promote the equality, advancement and well being of women, recognizing them as interdependent members of society, whether in the family, workplace or community.
3. To promote, secure and defend legislation which upholds the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and family life.
4. To support government and social policies that make homemaking possible for women who, out of necessity, would otherwise have to take employment outside the home.
5. To support the right to life of all innocent individuals from conception to natural death.
Motto: Women's rights, but not at the expense of human rights.

---

The motto is rather ironic since it seems to categorize women outside of the realm of human beings. The rest of their website is something else, including:

quote:

---

REAL Women of Canada has recently learned that Justice McMurtry's son, Jim McMurtry, in his published letter in the Vannet B.C. newspaper chain, acknowledged that his sister, the daughter of Justice McMurtry, lives in a homosexual union. This gives rise to an apprehension of bias that Justice McMurtry had a personal and familial interest in the disposition of the Halpern case, which seriously impaired his objectivity and his ability to adjudicate the case. Justice McMurtry did not recuse himself from the case, nor did he disclose, on the record, the fact of his daughter's homosexual relationship.

---

I know what you were trying to say, but be careful about making assumptions about an entire religion.

[ 10 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

1. Queer film fest under attack
Straight.com, dd Sept. 14, 2006
The Department of Canadian Heritage should cut $23,000 in funding to the Vancouver Queer Film Festival because the films are "degenerate and
degrading to humanity", according to conservative lobby group REAL Women of Canada.
Read More at http://dawn.thot.net/rwoc_watch.html#qff

2. Court Challenges Program Under Review
Today's Family News, Focus on the Family (FOTF) dd Sept. 13, 2006
Read More at http://dawn.thot.net/rwoc_watch.html#fotf