babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » What 's up with Belinda Stronach ?!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What 's up with Belinda Stronach ?!
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 21 October 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why does Belinda Stronach seem to get insulted so much - often with references to her sexuality or other areas of her personnal life ? Reading the reports in the Montreal Gazette today about how her former beau called her a dog just makes me more than sad. Its clear to me at least she's a good MP who cares about women's issues among others- so why does anything else matter ? This level of continous speculation doresn't happen with male MP's.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 21 October 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's largely due to the fact that her old party still hasn't forgiven her for defecting to the Liberals. She crossed the floor and, in doing so, prevented the Tories from forcing an election at a time when such an election would have given the Tories the majority government the White Christian Heterosexual God had decreed they were entitled to(as the Tories see it, of course.)

It's the old "politicians have long memories" thing combined with the old "how dare them wimminfolk defy our will" thing.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
glasstech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11534

posted 21 October 2006 03:26 PM      Profile for glasstech     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for INP        Edit/Delete Post
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
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 21 October 2006 04:59 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given that this board's participants mostly support the NDP rather than the Liberals, you can't really nail us for double standards on this one, INP.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 October 2006 05:58 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 21 October 2006 06:41 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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 ?


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
INP
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13371

posted 21 October 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for INP        Edit/Delete Post
Main Stream Media

And 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      Profile for pencil-skirt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for glasstech     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 21 October 2006 08:53 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder about the public perception of Belinda's smarts. Every time I see her lampooned on Air Farce or 22 Minutes or Mercer she is portrayed as an airhead. I never thought of these shows as particularly sexist but what gives here? I know she inherited her fortune but does she not run the business? Has she not been an effective legislator for the most part? Is it purely a lookist issue that gets her tagged as ditzy?
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
pencil-skirt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4612

posted 21 October 2006 09:00 PM      Profile for pencil-skirt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It certainly doesn't help that besides being a woman, she is a relatively young and attractive woman. Canadian female politicians tend to be older, and greyer by the time they reach the halls of power that Belinda is in.
From: Saturn | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 21 October 2006 09:50 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732

posted 21 October 2006 10:00 PM      Profile for Polly Brandybuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pencil-skirt:
It certainly doesn't help that besides being a woman, she is a relatively young and attractive woman. Canadian female politicians tend to be older, and greyer by the time they reach the halls of power that Belinda is in.

That may be because the older greyer politicians have actually put in the time and have the experience necessary to earn the trust of the voters. Just saying.


From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 21 October 2006 10:31 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865

posted 22 October 2006 06:28 AM      Profile for clandestiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
you all missed the boat. it has nada to do with ms stronach. it has to do with airtime, pages of print, media produce etc. Harper wants to get a majority gov so he can foist one on the goddam canadian people, who must be handled with kid gloves until he has the power to execute critics in the night, like his bush now has, and until then(?).....the newsmedia is a liar, and expends as much energy hiding plain details as selling the bad dope they say is farmacuetical crack (it's really mothball)...sure ms stronach has qualities that the mediawhores get excited about, but the main thing is they can avoid talking about the criminal regime cementing its power in the ussa, and what that implies here on the olde sod...
the newsmedia is the biggest issue on earth; and it's mostly a fukking liar. that should alarm people who are 'hostages to fortune' (they have families etc) as it empowers ted bundy clones, but it don't. how much hypocrisy can the rightwing utilize? michael ignatieff is da man....

From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 22 October 2006 07:30 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not to nitpick, but comparing Trudeau's Harper's or Ignatieff's "lack of experience" when they took office to Stronach's when she decided to run for office is rather ridiculous.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 October 2006 09:55 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 22 October 2006 10:36 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 22 October 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given any specific accomplishment, most Canadians have not done it. However, I would expect a candidate for prime minister to have done *something* which is impressive. Whether it's a diplomatic career, an academic career or whatever is too specific to be globally relevent. Stronach didn't have any real accomplishments under her belt. As for representing your constituents, that would presumably, require less expectations than representing the country.

The "average Canadian" as you bring it up, would not be equipped to go from nowehere to prime minister in six months. Neither did any of the people I brought up. Only Stronach thought she could.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 22 October 2006 12:16 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for pencil-skirt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 22 October 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I like Belinda's[yes you can use first names when you take someone seriously] fortitude. She has proven to have a steep learning curve and we may be in for some pleasant surprises once she decides that the system is not well designed for women. She seems to be frank and hardworking---I really hope that she doesn't let that spineless little weasel ex boyfriend give her any more grief. I'm going to send her a 'go girl' if I can find her email---I hope that lots of women[and feminist men] will let her know that they feel for her and that they are demanding action from their local mp s.
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 October 2006 04:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pencil-skirt:
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?

I don't. I was quoting someone else.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 22 October 2006 04:52 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When Belinda Stonach first came on the scene, I agree that she din't necesarily give of the greatest impression - but I think that she has grown immensly over the years. I would be happy to see her as prime minister now- I think she has the requisite experience, especially after running a Fortune 500 company !! Experience is as good as a University degree- many peole have degrees and/or have traveled all over the world and are not qualified to eun a country. I have a University degree and have traveled to many places, and am certainly not qualified to be the Prime Minister of Canada !
I also don't agree with the analysis that being attractive is necessary these days to be a female politician- that's just the same sexist media sensationalism that's surrounding Belinda Stronach. I think it's really sad that parties if parties are indeed exploiting by selling of a date at a fundraiser.
With experiences like these, it is hardly any wonder there are few female politicians on Parmliemnt Hill.

From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 October 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
I would be happy to see her as prime minister now- I think she has the requisite experience, especially after running a Fortune 500 company !!
Um, which Fortune 500 company would that be exactly?

And why is it that business experience alone is sufficient to qualify one to be Prime Minister? That would make Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney, among others, excellent choices.

Doesn't politics count for anything?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 22 October 2006 07:02 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 22 October 2006 08:01 PM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those people concerned about right-wing female politicians getting the respect and recognition they deserve should take a look at Diane Ablonczy.
I wouldn't vote for her, but she did get elected as a Conservative and she has been a conservative MP since the Reform Party days. When Harper swore in his cabinet last January he didn't give DA a cabinet post, but he did give one to Emerson, the male MP who campaigned against the Cons, got elected as a Liberal, and then betrayed all his supporters by accepting a job from Harper.
I watched the swearing-in on TV and DA was obviously boiling mad, she was gritting her teeth, clutching her chair, and she looked like she was ready to explode. A number of Cons in the room appeared to be upset and agitated about Emerson's presence.
If any right-wing female MP deserves a cabinet position, DA 'deserves' it more than BS.
I think any concern about 'injustice' towards BS is misplaced.

From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 October 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
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.
I don't disagree with that.

I disagree with the idea that experience in business, whether for a man or a woman, makes one qualified to be prime minister.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 22 October 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I'll back you up on that.
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      Profile for Alen        Edit/Delete Post
"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      Profile for Alen        Edit/Delete Post

[ 24 October 2006: Message edited by: Alen ]


From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 24 October 2006 07:30 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Peter's retort wasn't that off (and it was a little humerous).

Can you explain this quote, or should I just assume you won't be staying here long?

From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alen
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13392

posted 24 October 2006 07:36 AM      Profile for Alen        Edit/Delete Post
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
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 24 October 2006 07:49 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alen
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13392

posted 24 October 2006 08:01 AM      Profile for Alen        Edit/Delete Post
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
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 24 October 2006 08:14 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alen
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13392

posted 24 October 2006 08:18 AM      Profile for Alen        Edit/Delete Post
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
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 24 October 2006 08:19 AM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Alen. If Mackay is an obnoxious sexist garbagemouth, Stronach is even worse.
I didn't know about this comedy skit with Cathy Jones because I don't watch '22 minutes'. At the time it happened i was seriously ill so I wasn't paying attention to BS or loud obnoxious comedians.
Why should anyone want to defend BS? She's not vulnerable or mistreated, quite the opposite.
Keeping in mind her comments on male parliamentarians and erectile dysfunction, I view all this howling about injustice to Belinda as an absurd double-standard.

From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 24 October 2006 09:31 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A male Parliamentarian calls a female Parliamentarian a dog, in the House of Commons. This is called a "sexist remark"; it is an insult that is usually directed by men against women specifically. It is an example of "sexism."
Here is a description for those who are new to the feminism forum (or pretending to be new).

MacKay should not be allowed back into the Housde of Commons until he apologizes for his sexist remark.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 24 October 2006 10:32 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree- both are sexist remarks.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 24 October 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 24 October 2006 11:48 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brison never apologized; but then again, no one really expected him to - everyone knows what a bitch he is.

Seriously, great point, Gir. Does Belinda suffer ongoing attack because she's a woman, or is Brison off-limits because of the SSM thing and the Conservative fear of revealing their driving hatred and bigotry?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 October 2006 11:53 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 24 October 2006 04:37 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
Why, so you can call them incompetent and demand their resignation?
Is that an example of "anti-women attacks ... made against females who don't have the right politics, using reactionary language, which are breezily rationalized away as not being anti-feminist"?

I'm just as appalled as anybody by sexist language used against women, but if one really is incompetent why can't anyone say so?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 October 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think, what is meant here, is that you say something else about them that is more derogatory than "incompetent," like say "hysterical" and then the fact that they are "hysterical" indicates that they are therefore "incompetent," and should resign.

[ 24 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 24 October 2006 05:40 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So does that mean I'm still allowed to say Rona Ambrose is incompetent, and Condoleeza Rice is a warmongering imperialist?
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 October 2006 06:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Southlander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10465

posted 24 October 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for Southlander     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
having your own aganda, as an insult, means you are persuing your own purpose in life (usually clandestinely), and having little consideration for others.
From: New Zealand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 25 October 2006 03:40 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 25 October 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by clersal:
...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...
Was this after he dumped the girlfriend he had been sleeping with so he could sleep with Stronach? I love this double standard: "Stronach sleeps around so she deserves to be badmouthed by her ex-boyfriend who also sleeps around, but he's a man so it's ok for him to do it so we need not mention that."


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 25 October 2006 01:20 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Contrarian don't get your knickers in a knot. First of all I am of the feminine faith.
Second I don't know who dumped who nor do I give a flying fig.
Third I was just repeating what he said on TV.

What crossed my mind was my dog is more loyal than my ex husband ever was. Of course my mutt has been to the Vet which assures his loyalty.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 25 October 2006 03:00 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The whole question of Stronach's behaviour is beside the point. In the House of Commons a male MP made a sexist comment against a female MP. This is not acceptable behaviour. He should be booted out.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
JaneyCanuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12682

posted 25 October 2006 03:19 PM      Profile for JaneyCanuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 25 October 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The whole question of Stronach's behaviour is beside the point. In the House of Commons a male MP made a sexist comment against a female MP. This is not acceptable behaviour. He should be booted out.

Agreed.
What happens when we grils call men: Male Chauvinist Pigs?

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 October 2006 04:36 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, you usually call them that right after they've demonstrated that they were, so it's not actually slanderous.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 25 October 2006 04:52 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If its speaking truth to power- rock on ! If not- well its certainly mean but I'm not 100% certain thats sexist.. i think it may be though.

On another note, I agree ther should be more enforced rules and penalties- because what's in force now isn't working. 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 ? Criticise- this is all good and necessary, but attack the idea and not a person's characteristics.


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 26 October 2006 12:07 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 26 October 2006 12:38 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
The whole question of Stronach's behaviour is beside the point. In the House of Commons a male MP made a sexist comment against a female MP. This is not acceptable behaviour.
I don't think it's really about behaviour at all. If McKay said the same thing to someone in a private conversation, you would not be able to fault his "behaviour", but the comment would be no less despicable and deserving of censure.

The Conservatives are trying to make this about behaviour. They like to point out that all kinds of things are shouted across the floor from both sides while someone is talking, not even directed at the speaker (i.e. heckling), but just side arguments and mutual catcalls. They like to say the Opposition are just as guilty of this as the Government. They like to pretend that if it isn't caught on camera, or deemed worthy of inclusion in Hansard by the stenographers, then it doesn't really count as "behaviour".


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 26 October 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have never been in a workplacew where one of my co-workers have made a bluntly sexist or racist comment like those that are made in the House of Parliment- it would be unthinkable. That really for me is what's at issue- any other sort of insult directed at a woman is something I can swallow- but one like dog, bitch, one that references appearance, any type of dumb blonde joke, any reference to sex life- anything like tat should be punished especially. The flip side-men-equally applies, but given that we are in a patriarchal society where women are frequently silenced in all sorts of ways(as I said, this does not contribute to encouraging more women MP's) I feel that for a man to use sexist insults towards a woman is worse.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 26 October 2006 02:57 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 27 October 2006 07:14 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

We need a much higher quality mandate for parliament that demands not only civility but a willingness to work together for the common good.

This deserves repeating... And more than once.

quote:

We need a much higher quality mandate for parliament that demands not only civility but a willingness to work together for the common good.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 October 2006 08:39 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"...willingness to work together for the common good."

Yeah, why can't those MP's all shake hands and agree to be pals? Why do we have to have arguments all the time? Far better to have a Parliament where everyone agrees with each other. After all, it's for the common good!


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 27 October 2006 10:55 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just wondering if the ladies here would be more or less likely to go for public office now?
I think that is one reason to defend stronach.
because if you leave her dangling, there will be a lot less women going for election (for any of the partys) the next time.
And that will suit the conservative leadership just fine.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 27 October 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why do we have to have arguments all the time?

Arguing policy is working towards a common good Spectre... Using petty insults like this dog comment isn't much above breaking into 'You so fat you've got you're own postal code' arguements. Recognize the difference plz.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 October 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brian White, this is the feminism forum. "Women" will do fine.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 27 October 2006 09:22 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
Brian White, this is the feminism forum. "Women" will do fine.

Sorry, I dont walk the walk or talk the talk.
So the question is. It will intimidate women if mckay is allowed to get away with it? Or no?
Or have you no opinion?
I think that if mckay gets away, EVERY party will have less women candidates next time.
So feminist women especially should be on mckays case and do whatever it takes to get an apology out of the guy or get him hounded out of parliament.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 27 October 2006 09:48 PM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 27 October 2006 10:48 PM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
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?

Anyone should be able to run for office if they want to.

But if you want to be elected, then yes, I think its reasonable to expect the candidate to have accomplished something in their life, not necessarily a "business-based" success, but someone who has "chronic unemployment" would likely not be the best PM, although of course the voters should decide.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 29 October 2006 05:54 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 November 2006 09:06 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What a pig. I mean, okay, everyone tells ribald jokes sometimes. I could see someone having a snicker over that with a friend over a beer. But not in a speech given in their official capacity for their job, especially as a public servant.

In any case, if he's pandering to his political base, then it was a smart move. Most conservative types I know would get a kick out of that, not just for the humour in and of itself, but because they'd see it as a slap in the face for uppity women and people they perceive as humourless and "politically correct".

I like the headline, though: "Stronach quip dogs Klein".


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 09:37 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 November 2006 06:02 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Having saw the clip on the news, and the interview with the woman speech writer , who allegedly had a "hand" in writing, and many women just chuckling over it, I am very disheartened!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 09 November 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 November 2006 09:16 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Guess who's having s-e-x uh-HAHAHAHHAHAHAH! It's like scan-da-lous eh

[ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M.Gregus
babble intern
Babbler # 13402

posted 09 November 2006 09:28 PM      Profile for M.Gregus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491

posted 09 November 2006 09:46 PM      Profile for Summer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With the exception of the mistake of thinking we're living in a time which is "post-gender equality", I liked the article. Belinda is pretty damn interesting as far as politicians go and the article pastes together a bunch of commonly held beliefs - both facts and fictions - held about her along with some lesser known facts.

If you scroll through the first part and get to the last page, there's some good stuff there. A metaphor for Belinda perhaps? If you can get past the fact that she likes sex and sculpted bodies (and really, who doesn't like those things?), there's some good stuff there...


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 09 November 2006 09:47 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 10 November 2006 06:24 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
so I turn on the radio this morning only to find that Ralph Klein has added his oh so bright observations on Belinda and her relationship with the reform twit.
it just goes on and on for this poor woman.

From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 10 November 2006 06:36 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, God. What business is any former relationship of Belinda's of Ralph Klein's? Klein continues to make me puke.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 November 2006 07:01 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 10 November 2006 07:01 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Certainly a tasteless comment -- even if was at a roast.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 November 2006 07:18 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for M.Gregus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 10 November 2006 11:36 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do any of you write to the newspapers that the Klien bone remark makes you physically sick?
And it wouldnt be acceptable in a workplace?
So why let the swine get away with it?
Women had to stand up against that shit in the fire service (and win settlements eventually).
It is the only way to get the these guys to back down. They are just in fear of female competition for their jobs and this verbal abuse WORKS to intimidate most women!
Think of some headlines for your letters.
Stop verbal abuse of women in parliament?
Or this respect of women pledge? "If elected, I pledge not to use sexual slurs against female opponents".
I work in construction. The generation who wolfwhistled and howled is dieing off and we see woman painters and siders and even stonemasons!
And even though men have a physical advantage, they are just as productive.
But they would never have entered the trades if the wolfs were still allowed to dominate.
Men have no inteligence advantage over women so there is no reason that women should not make up 50 or 60% of parliament.
The time has come to extend the rules of society to the parliament too.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alberta Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13419

posted 10 November 2006 11:55 AM      Profile for Alberta Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 10 November 2006 05:54 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree, some of the comments in that article range from the cheesy to the offensive.

On the other hand however, what makes it easy for people to say sexist things against leading female politicians (or other well known women for that matter) is that don't know these people personally- and thus they are easier to objectify.By puting some personnal info in there, it personnafies her as opposed to making her the objective other.

I've probably said something like this before but I very strongly opine that our society's got a huge madonna/whore complex- and I find it so increadibly madenning.In our society, a woman is her body. As if sex isn't respectable ! All mothers are simoultaneously whore and madonna's- you need one to get to the other. It is part of a whole life that everey woman has a right to. Belinda's microcosm is reflection of the macro.


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 10 November 2006 06:16 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As someone on a different forum noted, at roasts usually the guest of honour is being roasted, or he roasts other people present, who have a chance to get their own back. Stronach was not at this roast.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 November 2006 06:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On a different forum? Hey, I noted it here!

Yeah, that's what made me go "hmm" when I was waffling about the whole "anything goes at a roast" thing.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 10 November 2006 06:38 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, well, you asked if she was present. Anyway, it's worth emphasizing.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 November 2006 06:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hee. I was just kidding anyhow. I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of that. I was just trying to figure out why it "felt different" in this case, even though normally I don't have a problem with crude jokes in a comedy-type context. The answer - Ralph isn't a comedian, he's a public figure, and usually, even during things like press gallery nights or roasts, there are some guidelines as to what is okay and what isn't. Self-depracating humour and roasting other people present is one thing - making slut jokes about women who aren't present is entirely different. Especially when you just know that Conservative creeps like Klein and the rest of the reformatories find it funny because they think it's true.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alberta Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13419

posted 11 November 2006 05:13 AM      Profile for Alberta Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, we are talking about a guy that showed up drunk at a homeless shelter, threw money on the floor and told the residents to "get a job".
From: Fort McMurray | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 11 November 2006 05:41 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 12 November 2006 11:33 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's a really nifty biblical quote- thanks !

With regards to Ralph Klein- I agree it is consistent with his past bad taste and offensive behaviour- maybe even more unintelligent than usual given the caffufle over Belinda Stronach's personal life. Who doesn't read the speech before he gives it ?


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 12 November 2006 11:51 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who doesn't read the speech before he gives it ?

Ralph said he did read the speech before he gave it. He said he thought it was funny.


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 12 November 2006 11:57 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 November 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
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
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 November 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, we'll have to continue that a rhetorical question, unless of course someone continues this in a new thread. (It's long, so I'm closing it.)
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca