betsy

If they are natural, why then are so many women breaking from said roles? For example: birth rates are declining and many who are having kids are waiting muchlonger. Are they suppressing "natural roles" or are they able to defy them beause they aren't natural (in otehr words not uinherent to every woman)? It's not a role that demands that it be done. It is a unique capacity that women have...so far at least. But the entire package that comes with childbirth is the role of raising children. Anyway, why do we hear about women worrying that their biological clock is ticking, "oh my goodness, I forgot to have children!"

If they are natural, why then are so many women breaking from said roles? For example: birth rates are declining and many who are having kids are waiting muchlonger. Are they suppressing "natural roles" or are they able to defy them beause they aren't natural (in otehr words not uinherent to every woman)? If the choices you're giving is either natural or cultural roles....are you then saying that childbirth is a cultural role? Don't talk nonsense. Before there were any cultural roles, there was childbirth. Otherwise there wouldn't be any of us here...either cultural or liberal! Anyway my etcetera was a big etcetera...you only have to spend a certain time around boys and girls, ie a daycare...to see that natural behaviour adapts to the culture. Not the other way around. Like boys in ancient times wrestled and whacked each other with sticks...and girls played cooking and nurtured dolls. Today, boys wrestle and whack each other with tonka trucks...and girls play cooking and nurture barbie dolls. Nothing really changes, naturally! Why is it that usually only certain men are attracted to certain traditionally female roles, ie hairdressing and interior decorations....while less feminine women we might say, are attracted to driving semi-tractors. And don't say it....the exception proves the rule.

Of course I've considered it. I understand the natural roles such as childbirth, nurturing etc.., But as for "socially constructed gender role", which in simpler terms just mean men do one thing and women do another....have traditional cultural roles given rise to oppression of women? I don't think so. That's the invention of 20th century feminism. Of course oppression is relative. Are you saying the wives of serfs were more oppressed than the serfs themselves? This is a huge discussion... and can't be encapsulated into three or four sentences. It has to do with power. Not gender. Are you saying Queen Elizabeth I was oppressed? Women may not have had the same rights...but that was the system. It was not oppression. Rights and oppression don't always go hand in hand. Further more, women in history who'd had more to offer had managed to do it.

So this is all about general prostitution? I was thinking of white slavery, when you referred to "slaves." Well, slaves can serve different "masters." Some slaves work for crack...or heroin. But then again, some slaves end up taking crack or heroin...to dull the pain of being a slave. It is a big problem. Prostitution had been around for ages. Perhaps even prehistoric times...maybe women trading sex for a piece of dinosaur meat. Do you think we can totally eliminate it? If you would make an effort to read this book then you would understand what I am talking about. It is about women in eastern countries being promised good jobs and when they get to Canada they find they are slaves. It is about these same women asking the johns to let them use their cell phone to call home and tell their parents where they are. It is about these johns going right back to the pimps and reporting to them and the women being beaton for asking for help, these women are fed as little as the pimps can get away with, they are beaton if they do not comply completely with what the Johns want. When occasionally these women do get away and get help they are sent back to the country they came from where they are met at the plane by the same people who kidnapped them originally. They can either be sent back to another country to be enslaved again or the are killed. Why don't you read the book, that is all I am asking? Was this made into a tv movie by any chance? I saw a tv movie (somebody lent me a copy) and it was about Eastern European women, some were pressured into complying under threat that something bad will happen to their family. If I remember it right, the heroine was fearful for her baby. It was awful. I do not deny that. And I cannot even imagine the horror in those kinds of situations. I am dubious about those strippers being given quick entry into Canada...somebody ought to take a closer look into that. As I said, immigration should be given some scrutiny. Obviously somebody's being able to get those girls in Canada under false pretenses. So what did your MP had to say when you talked to them?

So this is all about general prostitution? I was thinking of white slavery, when you referred to "slaves." Well, slaves can serve different "masters." Some slaves work for crack...or heroin. But then again, some slaves end up taking crack or heroin...to dull the pain of being a slave. It is a big problem. Prostitution had been around for ages. Perhaps even prehistoric times...maybe women trading sex for a piece of dinosaur meat. Do you think we can totally eliminate it?

Again...just a sweeping statement. You really think all prostitutes were forced into this? That some young women, unwittingly, had not decided that this is an easier way to make a quick buck? You think some deluded young girl did not imagine herself as making it to the "big time"....like those high class call girls you hear about, catering to sheikhs and dignitaries and celebrities? Apparently demanding thousands of dollars in one shot? That big-time madames like Heidi Fleiss did not recruit girls as any employment agencies would? Yeah, perhaps if there is no demand, there will be no supply.....but if there are no abundance of supply, how can you ensure a demand will not be created? You know how marketing goes. You create a need!

And? What did they have to say about this problem?

Please. Don't make such rash and irresponsible statements...and claim that you speak for women. Do not make our bid less credible. Women, generally, do not spout off senselessly like loose cannons. We are capable of discerning what is fair and what is not...what is right and what is wrong...what is truth and what is a load of c***! We have the capability to think!

Bashing women for trying to stand up for themselves is a common denominator... IN THIS country? What country are you from? What I find troubling is the notion that some women had embraced: that in order to stand up for yourself, you need to stand on someone. Why?

I am sick and tired of some of those who purport to speak for women and yet would want us to deny some of the natural instincts we possess! I am a woman and I am proud of the qualities...and inclinations....and instincts I naturally possess as a woman! I am not ashamed of that! I am not a man! I do not feel like a man! Get that?

Yes I think it is a just cause....but NOT when it involves a sweeping bash of all male. An undisguised veneer of disdain and contempt! For what does that gain then? Putting the shoe on the other foot. That is no equality nor freedom from descrimination and persecution. This is one of the reasons why the womens' right group had splintered. Some of us just don't agree with that kind of "cause." I don't know about the ladylike fashion (although there is definitely nothing wrong nor shameful with being ladylike....we are women, for crying out loud!)... ....but this kind of unwarranted aggression and indiscriminate animosity actually goes against a normal woman's nature, (and by that I mean someone with no emotional or psychological or physiological baggage) of being peace-loving, sensible and supposedly a much-preferred politician (if you ask Dryden).

Garth is apparently known for being a "maverick." Maybe the Liberals and the NDP will have second thoughts about welcoming him in. He could mean t-r-o-u-b-l-e. Green seems desperate enough...anyway, they hardly have anything to lose.

Before we even begin to contemplate how we can look at root causes....perhaps if you read your very first post, and your second....then maybe you'll understand why you're getting some negative and....bristling responses. You didn't exactly come as a regular messenger saying, "I come in peace." You were more like the bearer of bad news come to a small village already plagued by misery! Bwa-ha-ha!

I know. It should've been one-on-one...just between the two of them. Gee, Belinda had a perfect opportunity of really whacking McKay good...with her dignity intact. She should've done it like the way a classic woman would. Oh yes, I make no apologies for admitting that deviousness (if that is the right term), is part of a woman's arsenal....nor do I feel shamed as a woman for saying so. But oh no...she must've listened to poor advice and let herself be used by her own political party...or it was just an error of judgement on her part. It should've just been McKay bearing all the public scrutiny...but what she ended up with was landing up on the dock with Mckay. On CPAC Sound Off last Sunday, a woman caller talked of lack of morality, and just suddenly managed to insert Stronach to the topic...criticizing her for asking an apology and that she (Stronach) is not a good role model herself. The topic was, believe it or not, "Are children getting more violent?" This was from a woman caller! Today, CTV newsnet flashing her walking along the hall, heralding this fiasco and she or McKay being referred to as, "THE EX-LOVER." Not the typical description befitting a prominent political position. For either one of them.

Gee, does that remind you of any other recent incidents? C'mon, I give up. Gimme the answer! Okay, I'll play along... there are two examples I'm thinking of, but you probably won't like them. First, Conservatives suggesting that all Liberals were guilty in Adscam. Second, Harper twisting Iggy's views on the Qana bombing into an accusation of being anti-Israel, and then smearing the whole Liberal party with the specious allegation. But you'd guessed these, hadn't you? No, I never would've guessed that. So show me the exact statements that were said. If you can, please give me a link.

Gee, does that remind you of any other recent incidents? C'mon, I give up. Gimme the answer!

Let's just be clear on this. I did not rush into this argument blindly...for as you can see if you check out the postings on all threads, my criticism of Belinda's pandering to sexist attitude and hypocrisy just happened only recently. There is nothing defamatory with what I've said. I find it odd that for someone who abetted a married man's sexist attitude against women...she has the gall to smear a whole party. My accusation of her is based on what's been in the recent news. Where did she base her accusation of the whole Tory party? At least I had some leg to stand on. She just pulled her defamatory remark out of thin air I suppose...typical Liberal that she is.

I know. It would've been simpler if Stronach had not grabbed this opportunity to shoot down the whole Conservative Party...trying to paint everyone in that party as "sexist." We could've just said that McKay acted irresponsibly...or even sexist.... But to smear everyone? C'mon. Why would she get off that easily. I guess some could look the other way, being transparent that she is with her motive here. She is raking the ground...so she better expect to get dusted. But Betsy, in your blind rush to defame Belinda you are forgetting that by refusing to make McKay apologize and put this to bed, and basically supporting him with inaction and silence, it DOES reflect on the party as a whole. This is a Minister with one of the most senior portfolio's. I suppose this kind of thing would fly in say Afghanistan... but come on. First of all, an apology should be sincere in order for it to count. Simply prying an apology from anyone by putting a gun to his head or by threats...is not an apology. For all you know, he's got his fingers crossed while mouthing off what seems like an apology. Miliken said it was not in the transcript. And although it may've been implied when he answered "you have her," the implication is as you can see...open to debate. Just check out the debates here! If McKay refuses to admit to any wrongdoing and refuses to give an apology...then that's up to him. Belinda and McKay have had a personal relationship, which obviously spilled over to the debate in Commons. That soured personal relationship goes into equation, although it badly reflected on McKay. Harper should just admonish him not to let personal matters get the better of him. Who can say that that did not happen between Harper and McKay behind closed doors?

What politician did not try to weasel out of errors, stupidity, negligence...or crime? The "dog" issue would not have sunk into obscurity...even if McKay had apologised. It will come up again...resurrected....sometime around election time. It would've been better off if Belinda opted for the classy act...and instead gave a snide comment at the Commons, along the line of, "Okay Pete, I have no wish to pry an insincere apology from you...no matter how hurt I am with your ungentlemanly and below-the belt insult. I refuse to stoop to your level and would rather we all move on to more important issues. " Imagine how beautifully that would've played to the public? The media will not let that go to obscurity! She'll be the feminists poster girl! But oh no...she just had to use this opportunity to ridiculously paint the whole Tory as a one big sexist bunch. She voluntarily traded a dignified stance for a cheap shot. Should I then assume that her natural instinct had led her to the cheap shot ...considering the other scandal with a married man?

Oh yes. If what her biographer said was true...she is in her glory now with all this attention!

And now by pretending that he didn't make a silly almost-meaningless comment that everyone knows he did make has further undermined his credibility. It shows a disregard for truth far more troubling that mere ungentlemanliness toward his ex g/f. Belinda is showing a disregard for truth...by twisting this incident...to smear a whole party.

I know. It would've been simpler if Stronach had not grabbed this opportunity to shoot down the whole Conservative Party...trying to paint everyone in that party as "sexist." We could've just said that McKay acted irresponsibly...or even sexist.... But to smear everyone? C'mon. Why would she get off that easily. I guess some could look the other way, being transparent that she is with her motive here. She is raking the ground...so she better expect to get dusted.

Oh I agree with you on that. Whole-heartedly. This senseless sweeping male-bashing should stop! Painting everyone with the same brush is definitely not progressive. It is a form of bigotry.

I'm not criticizing your crusade about this, don't get me wrong. If you truly want to raise awareness about this horrible situation...you'd better send a copies of the book to your MP and to some media...hoping that somebody would do an investigative report on it. Obviously problems of this nature need fast attention, for there are victims suffering. So pick up that phone and call your MP. You've already read the book. So you're in a much better position to explain what's happening in Toronto! That would get results faster than ranting on the forum and bashing us for not rushing to pick up a copy of this book. So again, I urge you...pick up that phone and call someone who can actually do something about it fast.

Do we want a hollywood bimbo sitting in parliament? As a citizen I am appalled at the way our Commons had turn into a soap opera box. Competeing with "As The World Turns!" Yeah....my head is turning alright! Time and taxpayers money being squandered over an ex-couple's sordid love affair that went sour... As a woman, I am incensed as to how an important issue related to womens' rights is being used...calously cheapened...by this woman MP! For her to drag this on....over what she now is insisting as sexist attitude of a whole political party....well isn't that just ridiculous? What is she on about? She's been an avid supporter and an enthusiastic participant of sexism anyway, isn't she?