[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

The back cover describes it as "The dramatic story of the most successful grassroots lobby ever organized in this country."

"In 1981, unknown to most Canadians, thousands of women rallied in support of Clause 28, an addition to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would for the first time assert equality of the sexes as a basic tenet for the nation.

The Taking of 28 presents an insider's view of how this unexpected victory was achieved. It details the process from beginning to end, focussing on the specifics of organizing, strategies used, manoeuvering done and introduces a cast of characters that includes politicians, bureaucrats and a broad spectrum of dedicated women from across Canada. In total, The Taking of 28 is an incisive account of a faro-reaching moment in history, the implications of which are only now being explored."

I offer it up not just because my Dutch-born, rabble rousing spouse gets honourable mention, but because a vast array of young women have no idea of the battles that their taken-for-granted rights were born in.

Matter of fact, perhaps a majority now shrink from identifying with the "feminist" movement that bought them a formal equality, because the guys look down on such things.

Some work still to be done, methinks.

[ 17 July 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Victor:
Has this 1983 work ever been reviewed here?

---

I grew up reading the Want-Ads in the Gazette and Montreal Star. There were two columns: "Help Wanted - Men" and "Help Wanted - Women". There is nothing so dispiriting as reading that jobs that are interesting are forbidden to you because they belong to men only.

I fought to have girls allowed to be servers in my (Anglican) church. One church woman responded with a rolling of eyes and a plaint that "next you'll be wanting women to be priests"

OK, so I should have given up on the church :-)

I used to argue with my priest that the parent who earns more should continue to work, while the parent who earns less should stay home with the children, if desired (this was the '70's). He had problems with that, because his wife, a dietitian, earned more than an Anglican priest.

Did I tell you I should have given up on the church?

Especially when, over coffee one morning after the service, one of the men said that it was a shame that my really good friend was going into engineering -- that signalled that she was just trying to be "one of the boys" -- instead of going into a program that is more suited to delicate young women.

But you know, at this point, I was still going to church and trying to make a difference. I hadn't yet given up on the church.

Until I came home at Thanksgiving (I was going to university 400 miles from home) and the assistant priest turned his back on me because I hadn't been there for six weeks. Obviously an apostate.

Part 1V is The Drama of Politics", which Christina considered "mens' territory" when she broke into journalism and broke the story assignment mould. And of course "How Mel WAtkins Brought Socialism to the NDP" (Saturday Night, September, 1970), will bring all oldtimers to their feet shouting about missed opportunities - and leave newcomers shaking their head at that same thought.

I look forward to reading the full review of this entertaining and instructive work in "the lounge" soon, and you might want to put your name on the waiting list at your library. But perhaps it's also a buy (Anansi, $32.95) to keep for reference.

We live in even more chaotic and interesting times now, nearly four decades later, and the crowning of investment capital to meet everyone's dreams in old age can have only one outcome - change!

I think that the remnants of the Womens' Movement of the 70s and 80s should make it a project for 2010 to deliver another printing of The Taking of Twenty-Eight. Give some shape to what is now a disorganized response to churches about control of one's own body and life and such.

In fact I read something by or about Penney Kome not very long ago so I suspect she is still "extant", and maybe has lots of copies on hand.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

Christina actually pooh poohed the struggle celebrated by Penney Kome;..."Penney" it is

In Chapter 19, "Women and Political Power: What's Holding Us Back" (Chatelaine, December, 1982)

"I get it. I hear you saying, she's talking aout networks. Well, women have networks too now. Yes, I know they do. But from my observation, and from the observations of several women who view the three major federal parties from within, they're not the same as male networks. The bulk of them are comprised of "supportive" or "survival" groups that grew out of the women's movement and that still operate outside the mainstream of political life, gathering their forces periodically for the occasional guerrilla raid, like the two mounted in 1981 with so much publicity and so little effect over the question of the Constitution and then falling back without consolidating their gains."

But, then, Stephen Clarkson has done some bad editing here by not pointing out that in fact, the native peoples of Canada used the 1981 intercession to bring forward their demands for inclusion, so that by 1985, the 1981 struggles DID have real effect, for everyone.

Or does my memory serve me wrong?

I know that Clarkson, biographer of P.E.T. has the political moxy to know just what he is doing here - he was one of the course supervisors during my graduate time at U.of T.

But apparently, that year, Stephen was recovering from the Adrien experience and was "dispatching flowers" to Christina's "various hotels" during her tour of Europe with Premier Peter Lougheed's mission in search of capital for Alberta. They were hitched the next year.

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
Looks to me (from a basic yahoo! search) that the book has never been reviewed at rabble.

---

That is, there is not the militancy demonstrated in the media, letters to the editor, etc., that marked the 70s and 80s in this and in other ways.

Has the Palin "feminist" phenom been convincing for more than "Real Women"?