Author
|
Topic: What 's up with Belinda Stronach ?!
|
|
|
glasstech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11534
|
posted 21 October 2006 03:26 PM
Or maybe it's because she is blonde, smart, rich and beautiful. People in our society just can't handle that combination. The Torys should get over it, the voters forgave her for crossing the floor and it's time to move on. As for the four attributes, talk about Maria Sharapova or, more particularly, Anna Kurnikova. A lot of pundits still don't believe either can play tennis even though their money winnings and trophy cabnets tell a different storey. Anna has taken the most bad press because she never won a major singles event but she was an exceptional doubles player. To be smart, blonde , rich and talented and people still hate you, go figure!
From: Whitehorse, Yukon | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
INP
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13371
|
posted 21 October 2006 04:00 PM
I remember when Tom Wappel dumped his disabled wife for a newer younger model. there was nary a peep in the MSM. Clearly there is a double standard. However, with Stronach, it's not just a gender inequity, its the whole celebrity/Enquirer thing. The details of her personal life interest people, not so much because she's a woman, but because she's fabulously wealthy, successful, beautiful and smart. [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: INP ] [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: INP ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 21 October 2006 05:58 PM
quote: Originally posted by INP: I remember when Tom Wappel dumped his disabled wife for a newer younger model. there was nary a peep in the MSM. Clearly there is a double standard.
I don't think so. I think the MSM gave Conservative politician Colin Thatcher all kinds of attention after he murdered his wife in 1983. I guess his wife JoAnn felt Colin's complete lack of respect for his former friends and colleagues in the Liberal party was disgraceful and reminded him about it one time too many perhaps. What was the name of the movie about Colin, was it "Canadian Psycho" ?. Anyway, there was lots of free press and MSM coverage for Colin Thatcher, former conservative politician. He was a MSM hog. [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
INP
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13371
|
posted 21 October 2006 06:44 PM
Main Stream MediaAnd we really need to be careful about labelling every insult as oppression. Sometimes people deserve to be insulted. Take evil neo cons for example. Some of them are women. Is every insult directed at them on these boards a form of oppression?
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pencil-skirt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4612
|
posted 21 October 2006 07:02 PM
No, but if someone called a woman Tory a Conservative bitch, I would say that is sexist and oppressive. If people want to call Belinda dumb, I guess that is not sexist, but they use terms that are gendered, like "dumb blonde" or "bimbo" and this "dog" comment is clearly also gendered.I think the fact we are even questioning her intelligence so much is rooted in a belief that pretty women are not as deserving or as intelligent and they only got where they are based on looks. No one is questioning Ken Dryden's intelligence, or the intelligence of so many other MPs who have run for leadership spots. Now clearly, Belinda didn't earn it all herself; she is the child of a billionaire. But so was Paul Martin, and so are many other of the elites on Parliament Hill. I don't know why I have such a soft spot for Belinda, but I do feel that she has been a victim of a lot of sexist bullshit that no one should have to go through - whatever political party they are in.
From: Saturn | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
glasstech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11534
|
posted 21 October 2006 07:34 PM
Quoted by Pencil-skit "but I do feel that she has been a victim of a lot of sexist bullshit "Maybe because she is. A lot of people are intimidated by intelligent women and have to denigrate them.
From: Whitehorse, Yukon | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 21 October 2006 08:42 PM
quote: And we really need to be careful about labelling every insult as oppression.
Says the White Male Christian Breeder. Which is understandble, I suppose, give that nobody with those four attributes(which includes me, btw) is ever likely to feel anything remotely like oppression. Unless they're opposing other White Male Christian Breeders from the left, of course. Which is hardly likely in INP's case quote: I think the MSM gave Conservative politician Colin Thatcher all kinds of attention after he murdered his wife in 1983. I guess his wife JoAnn felt Colin's complete lack of respect for his former friends and colleagues in the Liberal party was disgraceful and reminded him about it one time too many perhaps.
You're missing INP's alleged point, Fidel. He would probably argue that Colin Thatcher was only tried for murdering his wife because he'd become a Tory(although being a provincial Saskatchewan Liberal, from all I've heard, wasn't all that different from being a Tory). INP most likely thinks Colin would've got off with a misdemeanour and a few hours of community service if he'd been federal Liberal or NDP. [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ] [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ] [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ] [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 21 October 2006 09:50 PM
I remember covering the conservative party leadership race on behalf of my campus newspaper. In all due respect to Stronach, she had fewer policy ideas, she wasn't familiar with the issues, she repeated empty slogans ad nauseum far worse than the other candidates, and her campaign was very much all style and no substance. All this and she thought she could go from nobody to Prime Minister in six months.To give you an idea, when I first wrote this post, I typed "Belinda" instead of "Stronach." That some would instinctively label her by her first name is evidence of the marketting campaign behind her.I remember one time at a conservative event in montreal, I and some other individual approached her to ask a question. The other individual clumsily asked for her autograph, and she happily complied, smiling and with the flattered laughter. I then asked her a question about the status of research funding in Canada. She began to answer, her answer was actually somewhat sphisticated, but her handlers pulled her away from me at the risk she might go beyond their script. I think what we're in fact seeing is the opposite of what most people on these boards think we're seeing. I think what's going on is that a prerequisite for any female politician to be taken seriously is to be attractive first. In the 1980s and 1990s there was Margaret Thatcher, Deborah Grey, Alexa McDonough, Sheila Copps, Geraldine Ferraro... all women known more for their minds. Now, the two most prominent women in the liberal party are Belinda Stronach and Ruby Dhalla, and I think that says a lot that these two women get all the prominence while other sophisticated members of the caucus get virtually none. I remember being grossed out when the Ignatieff campaign was auctioning a date with Dhalla. In the conservative party, the two most prominent women are Rona Ambrose and Helena Guergis...
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 21 October 2006 10:31 PM
Trudeau wasn't old and grey. Neither was Harper.Relative youth wasn't held against them. BTW, I don't have any particular fondness for Ms. Stronach, I just don't think she should be getting the sort of diss that male politicians are exempt from. It's one thing to say she's wrong on things, or even to be angry about her switching parties(if you're a Tory)but the level of invective and the "dog" comment directed about Ms. Stronach aren't just about another politician getting criticized in the natural heat of political battle. They are based on the notion that she's a woman and that it still isn't accepted as a universal matter of course that women have any right to be in political life at all. If a male politician had crossed the floor at the same time that Ms. Stronach did, and to the same effect on political events, it would have been forgotten by now, and everyone knows it. [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ] [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 22 October 2006 10:36 AM
Michelle wrote: quote: Why?
I'm very surprised you write that, if I'm wrong on my history, do let me know. To me, it seems self-evident though, considering 1) Stronach never completyed an undergraduate degree, let alone a master's or doctorate. Her career consisted of bookkeeping for her father's company. 2) Pierre Trudeau travelled the world and had read many of the intellectual works, had gone through many ideologies. He was even in jail once. He was a scholar for over a decade before running, helped found cite libre magazine to argue Dupplessism in Quebec. He ran as an MP in 1965, he was at the time a human rights law professor, and before becoming liberal leader had already tabled a revolutionary bill as justice minister. He had style, but he also had substance. 3) Stephen Harper has his own recruitment story. When Preston Manning wanted to build economic policy for his fledging party, he asked A University of Calgary for his "brightest student" to help him out, and thus Harper met Manning. Harper was seen as an heir apparent to Manning in the early 1990s... over ten years before becoming PM (Stronach expected to wait six months). He had a Master's in economics. There was a concrete legislative record, including originating the concepts of a clarity act, and launching the drive for zero deficit which the liberals would adopt. 4) Ignatieff... well... he's the one who comes closest to Stronach (I made the mistake of writing Belinda again). Though, unlike Stronach, he had a real career before coming in, which was earned through hard work. He was regarded as a leading intellectual by his peers and succeeded as a professor at Harvard. It's extremely difficult to succeed at Harvard, especially in an academic position... they tend to make their researchers work their asses off then not give them tenure. I don't consider this a sufficient qualification... but then again it wasn't he who stormed into the LPC and envisioned a win, it was the Liberal party which invited him. Also, while he is underqualified, at least he has proposed concrete policy ideas and has some substance to match the style. [ 22 October 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 22 October 2006 11:26 AM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples: 1) Stronach never completyed an undergraduate degree, let alone a master's or doctorate. Her career consisted of bookkeeping for her father's company.
So? Neither have most Canadians. What does that have to do with representing your constituents? quote: 2) Pierre Trudeau travelled the world
So? Most Canadians haven't done that. What does that have to do with representing your constituents? quote: He was a scholar for over a decade before running,
Ditto. quote: 4) Ignatieff... well... he's the one who comes closest to Stronach...Though, unlike Stronach, he had a real career before coming in, which was earned through hard work.
So? Using that criteria, it would also disqualify many working class people who don't have "careers", or people who have had checkered employment histories or chronic unemployment. Should they be considered unqualified to run for office or to become Prime Minister too? [ 22 October 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 22 October 2006 12:16 PM
Well, given the historic hostility to union rights at Magna (Stronach's company), and the concurrent opposition to emissions reduction (being a car company), I'd have to see something pretty impressive before I'd support her for PM.To be fair to Stronach, she quite clearly opted out of the Liberal leadership race, very early on. I thought her run for Convervative leadership was ill advised, but I also interpreted it as a centrist run at a right wing leadership. I'd have far preferred her as leader of the Conservatives over Harper. And as a PM, I'd prefer just about anybody... All that's from my dem-socialist position, of course - picking the least worst of the options. And I do agree with the assertion that in order to be a good PM, it is important to have built up some experience in the world, and hopefully to have accomplished something. I strongly disagree with the idea that Harper has done anything much of note. Stumping for the far right NCC is not an accomplishment, and we are overrun with 'backroom' movers who think they are smart. As the possessor of a Masters degree myself, I know what a joke that level of graduate studies can me - owning one doesn't denote intelligence, merely time-in-school. (A PhD is something else, however.)
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pencil-skirt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4612
|
posted 22 October 2006 03:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples: Michelle wrote: 4) Ignatieff... well... he's the one who comes closest to Stronach (I made the mistake of writing Belinda again). Though, unlike Stronach, he had a real career before coming in, which was earned through hard work. ...Also, while he is underqualified, at least he has proposed concrete policy ideas and has some substance to match the style. [ 22 October 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
I don't want to get too much into the business of praising Liberals here, but what makes you think Ignatieff earned his privilege any more than Stronach? She was handed her father's company on a golden platter, but she was CEO. She was in the Forbes 500. She managed it - a multibillion dollar corporation. She engineered the merger of the PCs and Alliance...no small feat either. Ignatieff was handed much of his academic career on a golden platter - do you think it was so uphill for him, the son of a diplomat, and heir to Russian aristocracy, to go become a professor? I doubt it. His family paid his way through Upper Canada College and Trinity College and put him on the path to the academe, while Stronach's family put her on the path to business. She was hardly just a "bookkeeper" at Magna. And besides, you can say at least Ignatieff's platforms have substance, but Stronach's policies seem to have progressed a lot since she ran for the Tory leadership. She is now advocating on women's issues and heading up the Liberal Party reform effort. Maybe a lot of her work comes from handlers, but believe me - Iggy's being spoonfed by a bunch of Toronto lawyers too.
From: Saturn | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 22 October 2006 07:02 PM
Yes, politics count for a lot, Spector.The point being made here, though, is that, whatever one thinks of Ms. Stronach's politics(and I don't think much of them myself, btw)she is being subjected to a level of hostility and abuse beyond that to which male politicians are expected to face. If a man with comparable experience wouldn't have his right to be in political life constantly being called into question, Ms. Stronach's right to be in politics should also be considered unchallengeable as well. Work for her defeat at the election, hold her to high standards, fine, but it's not legitimate to say she simply doesn't DESERVE to be in politics. Or that she should face greater hostility for crossing the floor than a comparable man would(and we can, I think assume that a man who had done the same at the same time wouldn't still be demonized for it).
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alen
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13392
|
posted 24 October 2006 05:54 AM
"she is being subjected to a level of hostility and abuse beyond that to which male politicians are expected to face"Oh please!. She's not subject to more criticism! If anything she's been getting a lot more POSITIVE attention because she's a good looking woman. She's just a lot louder about the criticism she gets. She's the bloody head of the "women's caucus" of the liberal party. That's why she's so loud about these things. She's got her own agenda here, and wants to advance her career. No surprise there. Peter's retort wasn't that off (and it was a little humerous). This woman has been making a complete ASS of herself. I'm a liberal, but Liberal's like Belinda, we don't need. It's not like Belinda hasn't made sexist slurs of her own against members of the Conservative party.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/11/10/stronach-this-hour051110.html Yes, it was a different forum, but the same politician's tactic. Misdirection with humour and a sexist slur when someone challenges you. And really it's just as offensive as Peter's comments.
[ 24 October 2006: Message edited by: Alen ]
From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alen
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13392
|
posted 24 October 2006 05:55 AM
[ 24 October 2006: Message edited by: Alen ]
From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Alen
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13392
|
posted 24 October 2006 07:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by Catchfire:
Can you explain this quote, or should I just assume you won't be staying here long?
No, I don't think I need to. If you've actually been following Belinda, and I don't mean just the headlines; you'd get it.
But humour is subjective. Which I guess wasalso my original point.
From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Alen
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13392
|
posted 24 October 2006 08:01 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: Your sense of humour is certainly "subjective", if you are actually trying to correlate Belinda attempting to match wits with Cathy Jones on 22 Minutes and MacKay being a trash-mouthed pig in Parliament.
Is calling some one a dog worse than calling someone impotent? They both seem pretty bad to me. But both were humerous in their context. Cathy didn't make Belinda trash Harper; just Holland didn't make MacKay trash Belinda. But both were attempts to sidestep an issue they were being challenged on, with humour. And in both cases the humour they chose to use was sexist and offensive.
From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Alen
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13392
|
posted 24 October 2006 08:18 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: What would we babblers do if there weren't trolls around to explain to us that there's no difference between a double entendré on a comedy show and calling another Parliamentarian a bitch?
Thanks for trying to label me, Lard. I already said it was different. Just not all that different.
From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 24 October 2006 11:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Or that she should face greater hostility for crossing the floor than a comparable man would(and we can, I think assume that a man who had done the same at the same time wouldn't still be demonized for it).
You're right. Whatever happened to badmouthing Brison? Speaking of whom... did he ever apologize for calling Elsie Wayne a "vile cow"?
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 24 October 2006 11:53 AM
quote: "This matter has to do with respect for women, acceptance of responsibility for one's actions, integrity, accountability for the truth and the dignity of the House of Commons," interim Liberal leader Bill Graham said to get the ball rolling.Harper defends MacKay as Dog-gate remains open in Commons
Okay: respect, responsibility, integrity, accountability and dignity. That's a lot to consider. Did this incident not begin with a male Liberal MP heckling while a female minister was speaking during Question Period? Has that Liberal member shown respect, responsiblity, integrity, accountability and dignity? Has he addressed how such behaviour reflects his attitude to women in Parliament? Why was it so important to talk over a person who had the floor during Question Period? Why is this acceptable behaviour? Is it seen by him and his party as anything other than a light-hearted joke? If we're going to talk about sexism in the House, let's make it an all-party discussion. quote: "When I look around the House I can see the anger on the faces of some of the men when my women colleagues ask questions," [Dawn Black] told a news conference. Parliament urged to boot rude legislators
The hate comes from all parts of the House. And sometimes those looks are levelled at women who are answering questions. This toxic circus is a turn-off to many thinking people who might otherwise consider running for election. quote: Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay’s disrespectful comments towards fellow MP Belinda Stronach are indicative of the Conservative minority government’s attitude towards women, the Liberal Opposition said today. As the Conservative government struggled to explain how its inept Clean Air Act would benefit Canadians, Liberal MP David McGuinty jokingly asked Mr. MacKay about the impact that pollution is having on his dog. MacKay Slur Speaks Volumes
Liberal MP David McGuinty’s disrespectful comments towards fellow MP Peter MacKay - made while Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was addressing the House - are indicative of the Liberal Opposition's attitude towards women and democracy. As the Conservative government struggled to explain how its Clean Air Act would benefit Canadians, McGuinty took a moment of male privilege to bark across the aisle at Conservative Peter MacKay about the impact that pollution is having on his dog, as this level of wit - this ingenious dig - could not wait for a more opportune time ... Unfortunately, all that can be heard of the exchange is a lot of huh-huhing and garbled baritone while Ambrose continued to speak through the hub-bub. [ 24 October 2006: Message edited by: writer ]
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 24 October 2006 12:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by writer:
Did this incident not begin with a male Liberal MP heckling while a female minister was speaking during Question Period? Has that Liberal member shown respect, responsiblity, integrity, accountability and dignity? Has he addressed how such behaviour reflects his attitude to women in Parliament? Why was it so important to talk over a person who had the floor during Question Period? Why is this acceptable behaviour? Is it seen by him and his party as anything other than a light-hearted joke?
Yes. Really. Ambrose even looks over in the video, as if she is annoyed. She seemed quite articulate, and was formulating a well argued point about the the Clean Air Act, while her Liberal colleagues are the ones starting the rumpus in the room. quote: If we're going to talk about sexism in the House, let's make it an all-party discussion.
Including the NDP, of course, which is not much better as far as I can tell. I had a discussion with someone once about Olivia Chow, and how I felt that the NDP mistepped by electing the wrong spouse to the leadership. The following conversation occurred (I think I have told this story before on Babble): NDP organizer: "Olivia is too important here (city council)" Me: "You know that sounds a lot like: Olivia should stay in the kitchen and at home with the kids." NDP organizer: "No. That is not what it is." NDP organizers wife: "Yes. That is exactly what it sounds like." [ 24 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 24 October 2006 12:59 PM
Absolutely: all parties should mean all parties. Personally, I find it problematic when anti-women attacks are made against females who don't have the right politics, using reactionary language, which are breezily rationalized away as not being anti-feminist, because the women themselves aren't feminists. Or not the proper kind of feminists. I find it interesting to see the kind of language that's being used against Oda and Ambrose, for example, by people who claim they want more women in government. Oh yeah? Why, so you can call them incompetent and demand their resignation? Oh, you mean a government formed by your party! Should have said so in the first place.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 24 October 2006 06:00 PM
You can say what you like.But no, that is not what I was saying. What I was saying was that I think you became hysterical and defensive when the subject of sexism on the left came up, and misread what writer said, which was: "Why, so you can call them incompetent and demand their resignation?" Clearly, charges of "incompetence" were to be seen as the end result of other types of characterizations, more in keeping with sexist traditions. [ 24 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 24 October 2006 08:12 PM
quote: She's got her own agenda here
Ah yes, the dreaded "A word". I knew that would come into this at some point. Why is it that right-wingers always feel that stating that a politician they dislike has "an agenda" is the last word in political takedowns? As if the fact of having "an agenda" means that whatever the person bearing said agenda says and does is automatically discredited because the "agenda" exists. Excuse me if I've lost the plot here but, Doesn't every member of the Canadian parliament, every politician elected to any legislative or executive post anywhere and, for that matter, EVER PERSON ON THE WHOLE FREAKIN' PLANET have "an agenda"? What is so inherently evil about "an agenda"? What do people mean when they use that phrase as an expression of ultimate evil intentions? And, while I don't support Ms. Stronach, I have to ask, what is it that those who oppose her from the right are so afraid she will someday do if they don't keep launching sexist linguistic assaults on her designed to question her very right to be in political life? Does the woman want to have all first-born children from Alberta stoned to death or something?
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370
|
posted 24 October 2006 08:37 PM
Please don't all start screaming at me BUT I thought I heard him say that his dog was more loyal than she is? I haven't been following this story at all except it keeps making the headlines and I thought that maybe, just maybe she was sleeping with someone else when he was with her...... Whatever, not an amicable breakup. I don't think they will be best friends.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 25 October 2006 03:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:Since these types of insults that are frequetly directed at women is an form of oppression, isn't that as bad as murder ? Both are attacks against women freedom and/or well being. Ps. What's MSM ?
I agree, we have a long way to go, it's still a man's world, even though some of them like to suggest differently. Main Stream Media
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JaneyCanuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12682
|
posted 25 October 2006 03:19 PM
In an interview, Scott Brison once described Peter MacKay as "dumb as a post" and that was when they were both still in the former PC Party!! I think Mr. Brison may have a point. Belinda encouraged the use of her first name - her web site was belinda.ca after all. That said, there is a double standard and while I never thought she is brilliant, there are many men in that House who have similar intellecual skills or less. What Mr. MacKay said is sexist and he needs to apologize to Ms. Stronach and then the the women of Canada and then to the Canadian people for holding up more significant stories while this foolishness goes on. A smart person would have ackowledged his mistake and apologized. Case closed except for the fact that the Tory party is not friendly wo women's issues. (not exactly a state secret!)
From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603
|
posted 26 October 2006 12:07 PM
I've been following this and doing my research before commenting... Theres some interesting ones in here to look at.Yes mmmmkay fits Male Chauvinist Pigs term almost to a tee. Though in this case (although it displays it well his attitude well) I don't think that was where he was coming from. He's a hurt lil boy airing out his dirty laundry using the Parliment as his stage... Which is unacceptable either way. Just more reason why our current parliment is a joke. Why don't we get a "Days of Our Democracy" soap going? On the other side of the coin, I've watched Belinda both candid and in her speeches. She's exceedingly good at spewing rhetoric, but thats close to the most I've seen from her. Nothing new, and who's biggest reason to be elected is image. This entire dog comment plays towards her support backing as she gets to be the strong female figure standing up to the chauvinist. I beleive her image benefits from events like this, which means I wouldn't be too surprised if Liberals will over-highlight events like this whenever possible. That aside... I think this entire event is a good display of my disillusionment with our parlimentry system. Elected MP's tossing personal insults across the floor... Then watching the public more concerned with what that insult means/implies then the fact we're watching the people elected to REPRESENT us act in a manner like this. Regardless of the sexist implications that McKays comment brings up, there shouldn't be petty personal insults chucked across the floor of our parliment... He should be disciplined along with any other MP that throws forth a similar personal insult. [ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]
From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 26 October 2006 02:57 PM
I agree with you Pride, it is worse for women.We need a 50/50 gender balanced gov't legislated. We need a Minister of gender equality until our govt and societal structures are more 'woman friendly'. We need a much higher quality mandate for parliament that demands not only civility but a willingness to work together for the common good. We need the understanding in govt, that once elected it is a members honourbound duty to behave well and work for the betterment of all citizens [and the world] and that party allegiance is a minor element of that sacred duty. We need a structure of govt that doesn't reward ambition or aggression. [ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: morningstar ]
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033
|
posted 27 October 2006 09:48 PM
quote: In a normal workplace or any other public discusion forum (i.e. ours or the classroom at a University) any sort of name calling of a racist or sexist nature is completely unacceptable. Why should parliment be any different ?
Parliamentary debate is unlike any other workplace. For better or worse, the whole system is very confrontational, with lots of heckling, insults and partisan thinking. There's few other jobs where you will be heckled and insulted regularly when you get up to speak and make a point. I remember when Harper first won this minority government, and I was thinking how cool and progressive it would have been if he had appointed some Liberals, NDP and BQ to cabinet positions, to try and make a "working parliament" that would seek consensus. Of course that was not to be, and sadly it's not really how our system works. Instead he had Emerson defect and join the Cons to become Trade Minister. I think we'd have a better system if every government was a coalition government with all parties represented somehow. On the main topic, I'm curious how people think the public would have reacted if the comment had been reversed? What if it was a similar situation of a political couple who broke up, but the man had left the woman to switch parties, and it was the female MP in the same context who said "You've already got him," when asked about her dog? Would there be equal outrage?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 29 October 2006 05:54 PM
I certainly don't know any women who could be convinced that working within the present parliamentary system would be an effective or honourable use of their life.This incident is just reaffirming that feeling. Instead of high level investigation, debate, and concensus building, we have low level pissing matches, posturing and lying. Most women[and most thoughtful men] find this parliamentary circus an anethema. It is, I'm convinced, worse for women with Harper et al there. but it's never been good. We need structural change---a flattening out and much less 'win' 'lose'
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 09 November 2006 08:45 AM
quote: late in the evening Klein said during his rebuttal speech: ''Now Belinda roasted me as a Conservative but of course now she's a Liberal. And I wasn't surprised she crossed over I don't think she ever did have a Conservative bone in her body. Well, except for one.''At that point, Klein looked slightly embarrassed and glanced to his side to catch someone's eye as he laughed. His remarks were met first with groans, then laughter, clapping and whistles from the hundreds in attendance. ''Well, speaking of Peter MacKay,'' Klein continued over the din. ''I hope you are as tired as I was to hear them go after it day after day in the House of Commons.'' On Wednesday, Stronch declined comment on the matter. MacKay could not be reached for comment. Gaffe or guffaw? Stronach quip dogs Klein Kelly Cryderman, CanWest News Service canada.com
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 09 November 2006 09:37 AM
Does this sort of rough and tumble deter women from a political career or will it attract a tougher,combative woman?The remuneration for MP's now removes economic barriers for women in politics,why don't more women run for office?
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 09 November 2006 11:02 AM
I think even in "tough" women, there's still an ingrained aversion to being labeled a slut, which is basically what's going on with Belinda right now. Sure, none of those guys are saying, "Hey, how about that Belinda, what a whore, huh?" But that's pretty much the underlying theme. Most people have a skeleton or two in their sexual closet. Most people have a vindictive ex or two who they've shared stuff with that they don't want to see on the front page of the paper. Most people (especially women, I think, given what I think is kind of our culture of sharing with each other) have told friends or lovers things about themselves or their relationships that they'd rather not have on the front cover of Maclean's, or discussed on the floor of the house. There are lots of strong, independent women out there. And a lot of those strong, independent women have relationships that mirror that - we're not afraid of being alone, so we might dump a guy or two. Or maybe we might want to play the field a bit before settling down, if we ever decide to settle down. (And if we settle down, we might just decide to leave if it's not going well.) And, well, maybe most of us can see that sexist pigs like Klein and MacKay and the other troglodytes who have been haw-hawing over the Belinda-what-a-slut jokes will make sure we get labelled sluts too if they don't like our politics and they can find a friend or ex-lover who will spill the beans on us. Or if, heaven forbid, we date a male colleague and then have the nerve to break up with him.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603
|
posted 09 November 2006 11:34 AM
you tube has the roast. I didn't see it from here either... This clip was forwarded to me pretty much as a joke thread from a female source no less: quote: Subject: Too funny...Good Ol' Ralphy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_JgdWb5WZU
Gets better... This was also forwarded around with the email, which is a selection of still shots of Ms. Stronach beside a variety of men with music playing in the backround (Beach Boys 'I get around' is one selection).
All I can do is shake my head at this moment... I'm not sure whats worse, the fact it was made for the purpose of labelling Belinda as a 'girl who gets around' or the fact thats people accept it and spread around under the label of 'too funny'.
From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 09 November 2006 11:40 AM
Pretty nasty.Oh, the other thing I was going to say about this. Some people might wonder, well, why can't women just toughen up about what is said about them? Guys have their personal lives plastered in the papers too. The difference is, guys who "get around" are players. Women who "get around" are sluts. (No, not really, I'm just saying that this is the attitude you get.) It doesn't affect men's reputations the same way when their dalliances become part of the public record. There isn't the same kind of disgust and ridicule and derogatory labeling that happens to men. Sure, some people might shake their heads over men's sexual escapades, and some might even disapprove, but it's just not the same. There is still a double-standard. [ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 09 November 2006 12:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Pretty nasty.Oh, the other thing I was going to say about this. Some people might wonder, well, why can't women just toughen up about what is said about them? Guys have their personal lives plastered in the papers too. The difference is, guys who "get around" are players. Women who "get around" are sluts. (No, not really, I'm just saying that this is the attitude you get.) It doesn't affect men's reputations the same way when their dalliances become part of the public record. There isn't the same kind of disgust and ridicule and derogatory labeling that happens to men. Sure, some people might shake their heads over men's sexual escapades, and some might even disapprove, but it's just not the same. There is still a double-standard. [ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Also the "dog" label. In some counterculture such as hip hop etc calling a guy a dog is a sign of respect.Also "heroes" like "Dog the bounty hunter". Your previous post made me reflect on Ralph's remark.I couldn't believe that even a pudnut of his capacity would be that nasty.My wife came through the door just when he made his speech and she was still sputtering invective when she left this morning. I see your point.While women are comfortable engaging in this sort of banter in a social setting amongst friends,it is an entirely different matter to face unwelcome comments in the workplace. Sexual innuendo about Trendy Trudeau was on a level of hero worship while Kim Campbell faced censure for a risque' arty photo. Peter MacKay is described as a desirable batchelor while Belinda Stronch is a homewrecking trollop. Nevertheless,if women do not start taking names and kicking ass,they will never wrest any power from the old boys club that runs the country. [ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: jester ]
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 09 November 2006 01:11 PM
Yeah, I was thinking that myself, jester, that I guess it's just going to take a generation of women who "get around" and are open about it and don't take any shit off anyone for it to change minds about the double standard. I mean, it's not like we haven't been doing that to some degree already; but as long as it's still an effective social control to hold a "reputation" over a girl or woman's head, then there is still work to be done.And it isn't all just men doing it, either. We women have to learn how to counter it amongst ourselves, too. In my experience, girls and women can be just as nasty at perpetuating this as boys and men. Pretty much any woman who has been through high school, or who has had the whole at-war-with-mom thing as a teen, knows this.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 09 November 2006 07:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by morningstar: We need a 50/50 gender balanced gov't legislated.We need a structure of govt that doesn't reward ambition or aggression.
If I may say so, I think that's the best lesson to draw from how women like Stronach get treated. It's not a new lesson. European parliaments noticed years ago that, when you get up to 33% or more women, you have a "critical mass" that doesn't, for example, laugh at sexist jokes. More importantly, that wants to get on with public business. Compare this with Quebec's proposal: quote: The draft legislation replacing the Election Act recognizes the principle of attaining equitable representation of women in the National Assembly. This recognition justifies introducing an incentive to encourage political parties to recruit women candidates and to help them get elected.This measure would be temporary. When the percentage of elected women reaches 50% of all members of the National Assembly, this measure would expire.
Or as Bette Stephenson said back in 1984 or so (it's only been 22 years, let's not rush this, guys) "It's time to take women's equality out of the joke book and into the rule book."
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 09 November 2006 08:25 PM
quote: Belinda Stronach, multimillionaire divorcée and recent minister of the Crown, likes sex. She likes athletes' good, hard bodies. Acquaintances say she's partial to younger men. And, being a dude magnet, she appears able to come-hither any hunk who catches her eye. Canadians, of course, have been down this road before with a public figure. Pierre Trudeau, multimillionaire divorcé; prime minister, liked dancers, writers, academics, musicians, the odd U.S. heiress — who can forget Texas party blonde Lacey Neuhaus? — in fact, just about anything female and many years younger than himself. It never deterred anyone in the country from labelling Mr. Trudeau an intelligent, serious public figure. But welcome to post-gender equality in Canada: Never before have we had a woman politician playing out this narrative. "We're a young country yet," sighed a seasoned Liberal Party insider, who felt it wiser to speak off the record.
Michael Valpy
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
M.Gregus
babble intern
Babbler # 13402
|
posted 09 November 2006 09:28 PM
Oh, good grief. There's so many things that annoyed me about this article when I first read it two weeks ago. It induced lots of teeth grinding then. Now looking back, it's not much better. Even the by-line is patronizing: quote: MICHAEL VALPY cuts though the façade and innuendo in search of what makes the millionaire MP so captivating
I doubt politicians who are men would be presented as possessive of a sylph-like "façade" and "innuendo" that only obscures the fact that they are "captivating." Ugh. Worst of all, I think, is the flip reference in the body of the article to post-gender equality in Canada. Really, Michael Valpy? Women are living in a state of post-gender equality in Canada? That's news to me. If the reference is actually meant as an ironic joke, I don't find it funny. Maybe he means well and is trying to highlight the double standard applied to women and men in politics (that was well stated earlier in this thread), but if that's it, it's not working. Rather than questioning or examining that double standard, this article just seems to reinforce it. I guess in the end, that's what bugs me most about it.
From: capital region | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 09 November 2006 09:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Michael Valpy
I found that surprisingly interesting. Especially this bit: quote: Incongruously, while she endorsed the neo-liberal Common Sense Revolution of Ontario's Mike Harris Conservative government in the mid-1990s, she has a huge social conscience. She has travelled into the poorest parts of the world with economist Jeffrey Sachs, a highly respected expert on eradicating poverty, debt cancellation and disease control, and a man she calls her mentor.
Stronach has, as she admits, been very lucky in her life. But there are others born with a silver spoon in their mouths who are not nearly as gracious. I don't understand how she can, on the one hand, be such a socialite and on the other be described as abysmal at small talk, but whatever. And yes Fidel -- she likes sex! And men who are well shaped (according to her standards)! And apparently expects the same of herself. No wonder Harper loathed her.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 09 November 2006 09:47 PM
M.Gregus, I thought Valpy was pretty clearly juxtaposing Trudeau's fame for sexual exploits with Stronach's condemnation for same with the phrase, post-gender equality.What I found cringe inducing was the quote from the poli-sci doctorate who was making social Darwinian statements about Canadian women and hockey. quote: It's an observation subtly reinforced by Amy Nugent of Edmonton, a doctoral candidate in Canadian politics who studies women in public life: "It is part of a Canadian woman's genetic disposition to be sexually attracted to good skaters and hockey players, part of our Darwinian struggle. Nothing sets my ovaries humming like the spray of ice from a hockey stop. It's grace, strength, hockey-coach-for-your-kids, the measure of a Canadian man. I was never a puck bunny, but I get it."
gaaaaaack.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 10 November 2006 07:01 AM
quote: Originally posted by M.Gregus: Maybe he means well and is trying to highlight the double standard applied to women and men in politics (that was well stated earlier in this thread), but if that's it, it's not working. Rather than questioning or examining that double standard, this article just seems to reinforce it. I guess in the end, that's what bugs me most about it.
Huh. That's actually what I thought he was doing - trying to highlight the double standard - but maybe I didn't read it carefully enough. I think in order for the "slut" label not to work anymore, there are going to have to be a lot more Belindas (no, not rich women, but women who "like sex" and aren't ashamed to say so) who openly date, are frank about not staying home on Friday nights, and say "Up yours" to anyone who has a problem with it. But, as I was saying to jester earlier, that takes a hell of a lot of courage. Most people would have a hard time withstanding the "slut" pressure. Most girls who endured the "slut" label in high school carry scars for the rest of their lives. Which reminds me of this old thread. [ 10 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 10 November 2006 07:18 AM
It's funny, at first I didn't catch that this happened at a roast, having just scanned the article quickly.I'm sort of an "anything goes" kind of person when it comes to stand-up comedy and roasts. The tradition of roasts is to be as crude and tasteless and off-colour as possible. The moreso you are, the more shocking the roast, and the more "successful" it is. So, last night when thinking about this I was a bit torn over the appropriateness. I mean, at a roast, anything goes, but if someone hate roasts (which I don't), then I can see where they would consider this unacceptable despite the occasion. Certainly outside of the roast, if he's expanding on his comments, he's going beyond the pale. And I don't know, I tend to think that even at the roast, it was pretty icky. I mean, what does Belinda have to do with anything? Was she at the roast? It was a cheap laugh, even for roast standards. And usually roasts are supposed to be about roasting the guest of honour, not random other people. If you have to resort to "Hey, how about that so-and-so, what a slut" type of joke at a roast, then you're seriously short of material. Even the Toronto Sun had "Alberta Crude" on the front cover of the paper yesterday over a picture of Ralph Klein.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.Gregus
babble intern
Babbler # 13402
|
posted 10 November 2006 07:22 AM
quote: M.Gregus, I thought Valpy was pretty clearly juxtaposing Trudeau's fame for sexual exploits with Stronach's condemnation for same with the phrase, post-gender equality.
I agree siren, there's definitely a juxtaposition of how Trudeau's sexual exploits are portrayed with Stronach's. In some ways, I think I see what he's trying to do--contrast gender stereotypes to show how they are unfair to women (in that "player" versus "slut" dichotomy). His way of doing that doesn't work for me though. I think he ends up relying on other, tired stereotypes of women in the course of making his point. That's why references to things like "athletes' good, hard bodies" and being a "dude magnet" get my goat. The worst of the lot really was the ovary-humming reference to Canadian women's supposed attraction to hockey players. That was a great one to point out. Talk about cringe-inducing! It's generalizations and references like that which take away from my appreciation of Valpy's points. I don't mean to jump all over Valpy, it's just that his article made me feel uncomfortable in many spots for what feels like the wrong reasons. I appreciate the chance work out the underlying causes of that in this thread.
From: capital region | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Alberta Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13419
|
posted 10 November 2006 11:55 AM
I never was a big Klein fan, but I do think there is a significant difference in his comments as opposed to McKays. McKays were rude and vulger in an inappropriate venue. Klein's were rude and vulger in an appropriate venue.Belinda attended one of Klein's roasts in the past and made fun of his weight, his farting etc. This is the sort of thing that is done at these events. I think the media should get a slap for going overboard with this, persumablly to drum up some contraversy for a story. Dang... and I have managed to stay relatively contraversy free for a week...
From: Fort McMurray | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 11 November 2006 05:41 AM
quote: Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores: All mothers are simultaneously whores and madonna's - you need one to get to the other.
Which is why Eve gets the blame for mankind's original sin.And this also explains why a male-dominated society was so full of "virgin birth" myths that the authors of what became the Bible had to shove one into the Jesus narrative, even as others were promoting a different vision. See Galatians 3:27, 3:28: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Or by a looser paraphrase ""In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in a common relationship with Jesus Christ." [ 11 November 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 12 November 2006 12:05 PM
Of course he did. Isn't it funny, though, how he got all bent out of shape over the Rona Ambrose hair remarks. Personally, I think both were crappy and sexist remarks, but apparently Ralph thinks it's okay to call a woman a slut if you don't like her politics, but it's absolutely reprehensible and sexist to say she spends more time on her hair than on her job.Not that I'm into ranking sexism, but if I had to choose between the two comments, I'd take the hair one any day. Of course, what I'd REALLY choose is not having any sexist comments aimed at me or any other woman for having the temerity to hold public office and have, you know, opinions and stuff, while simultaneously owning a hair dryer and having dates on Friday nights. But hey, I guess I'm living in a dream world now. [ 12 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 12 November 2006 12:11 PM
Ralph commissioned his assistant to write this speech,reviewed it and presented it.Does anyone consider the venue relevant? It was a charity event for the Calgary Homeless Society.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|