Author
|
Topic: Stronach, Thatcher, Meir, Clinton, Gandhi
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 17 May 2005 01:38 PM
I open this thread with a warning: see what forum it is in? See the stricture applied to this forum on the main page? Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view? Troll at your peril? Ok. It's only a couple of hours since Stronach lobbed her hand grenade, and I am already chewing nails at the ragging I get from some of the guys on the news thread if I insist that Stronach has earned no defence at all from serious feminists. To me, Stronach is first of all a creation of the ruling class she comes from, the patriarchs like Bill Davis and Brian Mulroney and Bill Clinton, it would appear. And she is second of all a media trick -- the patriarchs saw her as a useful tool precisely because she is a woman of a particular kind and thus marketable. In a way, it is wrong of me to list her with serious heavy-hitters like Golda Meir or Mrs Gandhi, maybe even Mrs Thatcher, maybe even the dreaded Hillary, because all of those women at least took their knocks and paid their dues in rising through some pretty nasty political systems. Belinda has simply been anointed by the guys who run the show. But more generally -- ie, this doesn't have to be just a thread about Belinda; in fact, I would be disappointed if it were -- what does any of these women have to do with feminism? Do feminists owe any of these women, who have learned to play the power games exactly as the patriarchs play them? Obviously, I don't think so. I have been not thinking so since 1968. But I'd like to hear what other feminists think. [ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 17 May 2005 02:17 PM
quote: That we don't like the sort of power Rice or Thatcher represent seems no excuse to resort to sexist insults against them because it further divides the movements that seek to overcome oppression.
To be fair, Cultural Feminists will have already dismissed them as "not-women", so doesn't that make them fair game? How can insulting a "not-woman" insult women? (and ya, I'm being a bit cheeky).
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136
|
posted 17 May 2005 03:27 PM
I suppose the anti-woman language is a reflection of a lot of raw, unleashed power envy that can be experienced equally by men and women. We're all stuck in this stupid system together, after all.Writing this as a blond 30-something who's had a couple of experiences of being hired for a job and added to a team partly for cosmetic reasons (I've also experienced 'not' being hired for jobs because of lack of family connections), I must say that one gets mixed feelings, to say the least. You're happy to be on the radar, to get a job (because the alternative sucks) but you try not to think about why you've been hired and instead make the best of an ambiguous situation. However, this happened to me when I was in my 20s, and I figured it would be best if I acquired some concrete skills that would help me feel more like a subject and less like an object. I think it's obvious why Belinda is in the position she's in, and I find it particularly disheartening and fake, given her lack of education and skills that one would expect of a decision-maker (I'm basing this judgement on the sound bites I've heard, the amazingly stupid repetition of the 'pie' metaphor and several sources of criticism I've read and heard on the radio...) I'm sure she's acquired the ability to 'network' at cocktail parties and to answer questions coyly during interviews, but those are abilities that only serve a certain class of people. When I see Belinda, I see "le vide", but obviously any void she had has been filled by privilege and power, and doesn't come from herself. That doesn't mean I think she's a dumb blonde or a bimbo - I don't. She's a cosmetic addition - with the added pull of wealthy privilege - to a bankrupt, cronyist system. The system reflects the changes brought about by feminism but shouldn't claim any merit points for bringing it on. On a related point, McKay is probably the dumber blonde in this pair - he obviously didn't see this coming. I have it from a reliable source that he's so dumb he doesn't know when not to talk.
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 17 May 2005 04:14 PM
First, I think skdadl is right to separate Stronach from the others who did pay their dues in variously dirty and/or patriarchal systems.I looked up some dates. Mrs Meir was PM in 1969-74, Mrs Gandhi in 1966-77. Second-wave feminism was fairly young then and while I don't know much about the politics then (or now) in Israel or India, it seems to me that both these women were elected under special circumstances. Mrs Gandhi was Nehru's daughter. Mrs Meir rose to power in a brand new country that seemed willing to try new things. So, I don't know that feminism has much to do with either of them. The others, though, I think benefitted from feminism. Women in the power elites serve the partriarchy quite nicely. The power elites can point to the female players and say 'See? We let girls play with us.' But it's tricky. I thought one of the saddest events of the Clinton era was Hillary's efforts to be womanly or lady-like or whatever. Cookie baking, sheesh. True, she wasn't elected at that point, she was or trying to be First Lady and I really really don't understand the USian cult of the First Lady. (My mother who lives down there says that one of Dean's biggest handicaps even before the scream was his wife, a doctor, who said she wouldn't move to Washington, she had patients to look after.) A female politician left off skdadl's list is Kim Campbell. I think her career and demise perfectly shows what women in the power elite are for. When they're on top, it's 'Hey we got a broad running things!' When they fail, it's 'Well heck she was just a broad playing out of her league.' And, as the current kerfuffle shows, they can act as lightning rods for anti-feminists of all genders. In any event, the ability of these women to play with the boys in this game at this level proves that they aren't anything like me. They remind me of some very aggressive and successful female salespeople I've met. Their armour is very impressive and very scary. skdadl asks: Do feminists owe any of these women? No. The more recent ones owe feminism.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659
|
posted 17 May 2005 04:59 PM
Just a minor side-thought: the first elected woman leader of a country was Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka. She was the first of the Asian dynastical women leaders, followed by a host of other widows and daughters -- her daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga as President of Sri Lanka, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, Indira and Sonia Gandhi in India, Khaleda Zia and Hasina Wajed in Bangladesh, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the Philippines, and so forth. They all were ushered into power or leadership by the charismatic memory of their husbands and fathers and by male-run political machines, but to varying degrees often transcended that. The example of Megawati, for instance (awful though she was as president), moved Indonesia in five years from a country where it could be seriously argues that women could not lead the country, into a country where that became a non-issue. I think the dynamics are different in Asia, but that these leaders have in their own way opened doors to women, without ever necessarily acting as feminists. So i agree with the opening post mostly (and hope it's OK to be posting here) but the dynamics may be a little different from region to region.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964
|
posted 17 May 2005 06:28 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Belinda Stronach a big-shot in the hierarchy of Magna International? Doesn't that qualify as something "impressive" to put on a neophyte politico's CV for those who've commented on her being eye-candy?As for these people being feminists or not (and I agree: they certainly benefitted by it): PRISON ABUSE Feminism's Assumptions Upended A uterus is not a substitute for a conscience. Giving women positions of power won't change society by itself. By Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Ehrenreich is the author, most recently, of "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America." http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2004/2004-May/010788.html
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 17 May 2005 07:07 PM
quote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Belinda Stronach a big-shot in the hierarchy of Magna International? Doesn't that qualify as something "impressive" to put on a neophyte politico's CV for those who've commented on her being eye-candy?
Belinda held no real power positions at Magna. I think she oversaw the company's charitable arm for a while and may have done a stint in human resources. Both of these are usually considered female ghettoes within the corporate structure and in Belinda's case would be perfect spots for a nepotism appointment of the company founder's daughter. She was briefly "CEO," which is of course a power position, but I don't think she was actually allowed to exercise much power in that position. Instead her father assigned to her a couple of (male) handlers to make the real decisions. Belinda is an attractive woman, yes, and that probably helps her in politics, although it also exposes her to various leering and ignorant commentary. Particularly from those on her "side" of the political spectrum. But also from a number of people on the so-called "left." A while back, I got into a rather ill-thought-out fight with another babbler as to whether it was appropriate for leftists to partake in some of the more arguably sexist parts of that sort of discourse, since Stronach was still a woman who shouldn't be slagged solely for her gender, but on the other hand she was an "enemy" who should be attacked with whatever tools were available. I felt I was trying to take a middle position but I think I defined my position poorly, and I probably ended up looking like an ass. In any case, rather than revisiting that error I'll just say this: I think its a more fair critique of Belinda to suggest she may be a "pawn" of her father's or other people's political strategy, rather than just that she's vacuous "eye candy." As of yet I don't think she stands in a comparable position to any of the other prominent center to right-wing female figures skdadl has identified, all of whom did achieve substantial political accomplishments besides being elected to something. Even if both they and Stronach share a fundamentally anti-feminist ideology. Nonetheless I do think Stronach is dangerous and should be stopped. I won't shed any tears about any attacks that she faces, although I may chose my own more carefully than I have in the past. [ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 17 May 2005 07:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I think its a more fair critique of Belinda to suggest she may be a "pawn" of her father's or other people's political strategy, rather than just that she's vacuous "eye candy." As of yet I don't think she stands in a comparable position to any of the other prominent center to right-wing female figures skdadl has identified, all of whom did achieve substantial political accomplishments besides being elected to something. Even if both they and Stronach share a fundamentally anti-feminist ideology. [ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
And yet.... Stronach did at least purport to represent those Conservatives (however few of them there are) and those Canadian conservative voters who want to be sure that cities will receive gas tax revenues for use toward public infrastructure, who do not have an extreme social conservative position on abortion or on same-sex marriage, and who believe Stephen Harper is being reckless in pushing for an immediate election. Maybe Stronach adopted those views out of expediency, but she did articulate them while a member of the Conservative Party, and to me that shows some substance, courage, and foresight. Now that she's a Liberal, her opinions on those topics are less significant because most Liberals already hold them. But switching parties takes a kind of personal strength as well, namely the ability to admit you were wrong, indeed, that you were wrong for a fairly long period of time. Keith Martin took a bloody long time to formally divorce himself from the extremism of his ex-Reform colleagues, but I admire him both for persisting for so long in the hope that he could help turn the Reform / Alliance / Conservatives into a socially moderate party (unless you call that idiocy rather than persistence - that would be another arguable interpretation), and for finally saying "I give up, I'm not going to be swept along with this tide of bigots anymore." You have to go against friends and colleagues who will see your actions as a personal betrayal. In such circumstances, inertia can exert a strong influence, particularly when the party you're in has a shot at forming government and the party on the other side has been somewhat disgraced of late. I don't want to overdramatize the difficulty of Stronach's choice, or to over-romanticize her reasons for making that choice, but I've been quite impressed with her as a politician over the last few months, and I'm even more impressed today. Thatcher and Indira Gandhi succeeded by adopting policies and attitudes that were more aggressive and rigid than those of their most macho male colleagues, and those policies and attitudes led to their eventual downfall, in Gandhi's case to her violent death. Stronach, on the other hand, seems so far to be able to combine humane principles with an ability to adapt in a reasonable way to changing circumstances. That's not feminism as such, but Stronach may be a better role model for female politicians than some of the other female leaders discussed in this thread.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136
|
posted 17 May 2005 10:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by ceti: Indira Gandhi lost her son Sanjay and then herself perished, Chandrika Kumaratunga was almost assassinated, Benazir Bhutto's father was hung by General Zia, Aung San Suu Kyi's father was also assassinated, both Khaleda Zia's and Sheikh Hasina husbands were killed, Corazon Aquino's and Sonia Gandhi's husbands were also killed, and you know what happened to Megawati's father.
It's sad how the stakes are so much higher in some places. Whereas here, our great games are more lighthearted - we can laugh at the way Stronach has learned to play the game according to the rules in place and at the resulting mayhem...I just listened to her interview with Peter Mansbridge, and her grasp of key phrases is actually pretty good. After all, both the boys and girls get good coaching from the eminences grises. But it reminds me of a doctor friend of mine who grew up in a very poor family. After graduating as a doctor, he didn't see any problems with the way pharmaceutical companies were offering all kinds of perks to physicians, expensive dinners, ski weekends, conference-cruises, etc...he first told me he didn't see anything wrong with the set-up, but a few months later he admitted that he was just 'playing the game.'
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477
|
posted 18 May 2005 02:44 AM
I don't know enough about Stronach to judge how bright she is or how capable of making an independent decision. In her interview with Peter Mansbridge she did not do very well. But one thing she said several times was that she felt uncomfortable in the party; and the pundits did not explore that much. In a group of politicians, more men than women, led by men, including social conservatives, I wonder how often she felt patronized or ignored; how often she was told not to worry her pretty head about things. Since she did disagree with most of them about same sex marriage and maybe other things, I'll bet she had an uncomfortable time, and if she argued, well, you know these women get emotional, right? When she was the CEO of Magna, I doubt that anyone patronized or slighted her. Whether or not she considers herself a feminist, I think she is used to respect, and I question whether the likes of Harper, Anders, Kenney, Thompson would be all that respectful.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 18 May 2005 04:31 AM
Aren't they all different, though? Circumstances, rise to position of power, convictions, challenges, actions?If the things they did were done by men, those men wouldn't be categorized all in the same basket. So, what do we expect of women in leadership roles? What do we want? I want them to be mavericks. I want them to change the rules, improve the world, impress me, make me proud. I want more Caroline Parishes and fewer Shiela Coppses! Hell, as long we're here, i want them all to be June Callwood. How fair is that? Generally, i try to be fair. They are who they are - flawed human beings with a talent and skill and ambition, with a point of view, and maybe even convictions, of their own. Being born female was an accident not of their making, and it shouldn't obligate them to a special interest. They can be as mad and mean as the men with whom they must compete. Rice is kind of a special case. At least, I have a special hate on for her. She's bright enough to know how many people she's betrayed. I'm not sure whether Stronach has betrayed anyone. The constituants who voted party rather than candidate must feel betrayed, but they're at least partly to blame. If she acted on conscience (perfectly possible, in the circs), good for her. If she acted on ambition (equally possible) it's the kind of gutsy gamble few politicians make. I see nothing to condemn.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136
|
posted 18 May 2005 09:23 AM
The Journal de Montréal is completely annoying and unreadable, and now this. The worst is, it's ubiquitous - you get the feeling they're distributing free copies everywhere people gather for coffee. McDonald's, for example (I bring my kids there to play - but we hate the food, OK?), always has copies to spare, and whenever I open one, the pandering ignorance spills off the page and poisons the atmosphere.With that, and Jeff Fillion's ugly, sexist schtick, you'd have a hard time believing we live in a province where women have made such significant positive changes in their own lives and society. The people responsible for this should be rounded up and....sued.
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 18 May 2005 09:53 AM
Thanks for that interesting reminder, swallow, about the women leaders in Southern Asia and Asia-Pacific. It is a striking history, isn't it, and I agree that, whatever their politics, the willingness of those women to step forward and the strong leadership so many of them have given has contributed to considerable social change in the region, even if, as ceti says, their opportunities have something to do with general and particular instabilities in the region -- even traditions of parricide?!? Now, Aung San Suu Kyi -- there is a woman I can admire in any context. Absolutely steeled, and for all the right reasons. Of at least some of the Belindas in the West, though, I think that what brebis noire writes above is closer to the truth: quote: The system reflects the changes brought about by feminism but shouldn't claim any merit points for bringing it on.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474
|
posted 19 May 2005 07:51 AM
Belittling BelindaI don't know if that link has been posted anywhere else yet, there are so many threads on this in the election 2005 and politics forum it's hard to tell. In any case I don't think anyone will deny the it's not polite, proper, or reasonable to react in the way that many of Conservative supporters and MP's have. And I think these reactions were largely because she's a woman. I can't tell serious feminists what to think, however, I can only say that I think it's completely un-acceptable for alleged leaders in this country, not to mention the tacky headlines, to use the sort of language they did describing her that can be in no un-certain terms be described as obviously sexist. And imoal [in my opinion at least] it's irrelevant that she's rich, and thus a member of the "ruling class", because most of the comments are related to trivial things (like her wardrobe!) or un-controlled aspects of her character like her being a her and then using them to make various vulgar claims. These sorts of things dumb down the debate of the real consequences of her actions and I would think that any one concerned about the quality of our political discourse in the world should be concerned about the completely dumb and visceral reactions that have been captured by this escapade. And unfortunatley keeping people mis-informed, or stupid, is what causes them to do things that are completely contrary to their own intrests. And that in itself is a cause for worry. If this, for instance, causes more people to be cynical about politics and not bother to show up at the ballot box, except for say more Conservatives supporters that could be a really bad thing. And frankly watching this escapade really reminds me of what's going on down south, and it's distrubing. [ 19 May 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136
|
posted 19 May 2005 09:05 AM
quote: Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid: And imoal [in my opinion at least] it's irrelevant that she's rich, and thus a member of the "ruling class", because most of the comments are related to trivial things (like her wardrobe!) or un-controlled aspects of her character like her being a her and then using them to make various vulgar claims. These sorts of things dumb down the debate of the real consequences of her actions and I would think that any one concerned about the quality of our political discourse in the world should be concerned about the completely dumb and visceral reactions that have been captured by this escapade.
Of course I agree with you that it dumbs down the debate, but unfortunately we're already there - not Belinda's fault, as such, but she's also used those rules to her advantage. As much as I'm supremely angered and dismayed by the sexist comments going on right now, I'm (almost as) annoyed that she could translate celebrity-styled money, family connections, an excellent wardrobe and blondeness into political power - well, maybe not power as such, I still think the power is in the hands of the éminenences grises - but definitely, political attention and consequences.
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Obvious
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9009
|
posted 19 May 2005 06:40 PM
Here's an excerpt from a thread I am involved in on another board: quote: In this context, she is a political whore, regardless of whether she is a man or a woman. I saw no one call her a whore. A political whore is completely different. (see meaning #3 above) The fact is, she was called a political whore because she crossed over to the Liberals to further her own ambitions and has lied about why she did so. The fact that she is a female is irrelevant.A whore? Did they really call her a whore? Or did they call her a political whore? Completely different context there.
When I argued as to blatant sexism in the consistent use of whore in any context towards a female MP, I was dismissed because it's a "Liberal" viewpoint. Very much like Christie Blatchford writing yesterday that all this is just an attempt by Liberals to spin the whole issue. *sigh*
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964
|
posted 19 May 2005 08:18 PM
In reply to Robbie_Dee's answer to me:Stronach is the daughter of the founder of Magna International, Frank Stronach. She attended York University in 1985, where she studied business and economics, but dropped out after one year to work at Magna. In February 2001, she was appointed CEO of Magna, and in January 2002, she also became its president. While she led Magna, the company added 3,000 jobs in Canada, 1,000 of them being in the Newmarket-Aurora area she now represents in Parliament. During her time as president, Magna had record sales and profits in each year. Stronach was a member of the board of directors of Magna from 1988 until 2004. She has chaired the boards of Decoma International Inc., Tesma International Inc., and Intier Automotive Inc., all in the auto parts sector. She was a founding member of the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council and served on the Ontario Task Force on Productivity, Competitiveness and Economic Progress. She is a director of the Yves Landry Foundation, which furthers technological education and skills training in the manufacturing sector. In 2001, the National Post named Stronach as the most powerful businesswoman in Canada; and, in the same year, the World Economic Forum named her a "Global Leader of Tomorrow." Fortune Magazine ranked her #2 in its list of the world's most powerful women in business in 2002. She was also named one of Canada's "Top 40 Under 40". In April 2004, Time Magazine ranked her as one of the world's 100 most influential people. Stronach is honorary chair of the Southlake Regional Health Centre fundraising campaign and a former honorary chair of the Howdown fundraising campaign. In 2003, she received one of Canada's oldest and most distinguished awards, the Beth Shalom Humanitarian Award, presented in recognition of outstanding achievement in humanitarian service. She is reputedly a close friend of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and former Ontario Premier Mike Harris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_Stronach I don't think she can be easily dismissed as just doing what daddy told her to. Like it or not, this list is fairly impressive. (Don't know why I didn't check Wiki before . . . ."
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023
|
posted 19 May 2005 08:31 PM
quote:
In a way, it is wrong of me to list her with serious heavy-hitters like Golda Meir or Mrs Gandhi, maybe even Mrs Thatcher, maybe even the dreaded Hillary, because all of those women at least took their knocks and paid their dues in rising through some pretty nasty political systems. Belinda has simply been anointed by the guys who run the show.
I'd tend to agree; its hard to include Stronach in that group ... does she have anything but gender in common? The daughter of a multi-millionaire who has had her whole political path paved for her in advance, who set up the union of the Alliance and PC, and ran for its leadership, who upon losing the leadership decides that it really wasn't what she wanted (and as bad the CPC is, it still has the same opinions as it did when she wanted to lead it). Her business experience is like that of most rich folks who go into politics ... a family present. Even her public appeal is largely based on her dad's fortune; she's not really overly photogenic, and certainly isn't a charismatic speaker. A comparison of her with Paul Martin, on the other hand, would make a lot of sense ... funny how Martin could find room for her in the party but not for Copps (Copps was just interviewed on CBC, and wondered where the left wing of the party went). [ 19 May 2005: Message edited by: GJJ ]
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 20 May 2005 03:17 PM
CP reported on Tuesday: quote: Stronach said that she spoke with Mulroney on Tuesday to discuss her move."Brian said to me, 'I'm your friend. . . I support you as a friend,' " she said.
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=n051789A According to The Ottawa Sun quote:
Stronach told CBC's Newsworld, "Brian said to me, 'I'm your friend. This is a personal matter, it's not about politics and I support you.'
Third party Marjorie LeBreton said: quote: "He simply said to her that she had made her own decision and she would have to live with it," LeBreton, a Conservative senator, said. She added: "He also said something to the effect that he considered her a friend and wished her well." An incensed LeBreton, who spoke to the former Conservative prime minister Tuesday night, said, "He did not say he would support her in this decision."
No, he probably didn't. And that's why Stronach never claimed he did. quote: Meanwhile, another Mulroney spokesman, Luc Lavoie, said the former PM, who is convalescing from a serious illness at his home in Montreal, was telephoned three times by Stronach after she announced her decision, and that the first two times he declined to take her call. During the third call, he suggested her move was disloyal. Lavoie quoted Mulroney as telling her, "I consider loyalty in politics a fundamental rule of the game."
For me, anyway, this is a big, who cares? Mulroney wasn't party leader, Harper was. He went out of his way to ensure he wouldn't have her loyalty.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Candace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3380
|
posted 25 May 2005 03:11 PM
In a new thread called "sex, sexism and politics," I posted some of the quotes said about Belinda Stronoch in the media, compiled by the NB Advisory Board on the Status of Women.Politicians and pundits DO call her a whore, among other demeaning and degrading terms. Surely, the same comments would not be said about a man. I'm really grossed out by all of the sexist comments... How can women be expected to participate in politics if they are all labelled dumb blonde bombshells, whores, harlots, etc? It's not like all of the men who are in office are there because of superior intellectual or decision-making abilities either. I work in radio. In the past, we have banned programmers for saying some of the same sexist comments about student politicians... Why is it that politicians can get away with misogynist comments in public? Would it be different if they were racist comments, or anti-semitic comments? Urg!
From: Fredericton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|