betsy

Well, it isn't just in my head. Drea just proved my point, admitting she did used to have disdain and contempt for those whom she called, "little spoiled bitches." Oh, and I failed to add condescension to the negative attitudes thrown towards stay-at-home mums.

I agree that you never know what can happen to a marriage. The wife and mother who had given her life making home for her family could end up with nothing should hubby decides to trade her in for the latest model. That's why the Movement deemed it absolutely necessary for society to change their views on how they regard stay-at-home women. The Movement wants everyone to acknolwedge that stay-at-home wives and mothers are not only contributing something important to society...but are also working a job. That's why in divorce cases now, rare indeed do you find wives walking away with hardly anything! The husband is most likely to support the wife to the kind of life you're used to, should the marriage end up in divorce. Your "envy" stemmed from the fact of comparing yourself of having to get out and work (dealing with all the hassles of having to work for someone else). At least, you no longer think of stay-at-home wives as "spoiled little bitches." Hopefully, all women working out there are like you. Home-making is an important full-time job. The Movement had worked hard in having it recognized and treated as such. Let's keep it that way.

That's how male chauvinist piggy husbands used to think of their stay-at-home wives too! Remember?

As long as that envy does not translate into meaning that stay-at-home mums do nothing but watch soap and squander time in leisurely fashion....that home-making means "doing nothing."

If a gay gets attacked by muslims in canada, somehow the blame will end up squarely on Christians' laps.

Harper did nothing wrong. Until there is the official change that Senate will be elected....Harper can still appoint, just like the previous PMs before him. If there will be "investigations" on crossing floors, investigations should also include Belinda Stronach.

Wasn't Shapiro Liberal-appointed...who failed to find anything wrong with Chretien?

I don't know about you Betsy, so many of your posts are in line with Margraces comments above. What are you exactly and what do you really stand for? Men are good at certain tasks at home and not at others. This is a fact most women have learned...men are not that adaptable around the homes, they have their limitations. However they have their strengths and are very good at certain stuff...mr. fix it stuff , the garbage, the remote control, you know what I mean. For the rest of it you hire a housekeeper at 10 bucks an hour. Get an education and go out into the workplace and make $30 plus. Take a few risks, that is the downfall of women, they just don't want to do stick their necks out a bit and manage instead of letting their lives drive them. When I said "I think we've been had!", I neglected to put a smiley to indicate it was a joke. But yes, I believe in some points that womens' movements are fighting for (and I find that based on their objectives, REAL WOMEN is the group that actually represents me...for I share the same values). So that's where I stand. But going back to working women, I sense that: Women who prefer and had chosen to stay at home to become TRADITIONAL wives and moms are somewhat made to feel that they are either being taken advantaged of or dominated by their spouses, that they are simpering morons who go along with the dictates of their husbands...and therefore do not have a voice in the matter of womens' rights agendas. The movement had evolved into something that had unintentionally somehow put a great deal of pressure on all women, in a negative way. I guess this was not really the intention when the movement first started...but it had taken on a different route. Concerned, please elaborate on this statement. I might've misunderstood what you mean so I'll keep my comment for now until I hear from you. "For the rest of it you hire a housekeeper at 10 bucks an hour. Get an education and go out into the workplace and make $30 plus. Take a few risks, that is the downfall of women, they just don't want to do stick their necks out a bit and manage instead of letting their lives drive them."

Nope, but it's totally irrational to take that to the next level and question all group homes. Just like it's totally irrational to think: that woman's a feminist + she spoke inappropriately = feminism is bad. But don't you feel that by operating a daycare centre, you're not only appeasing mothers' abandonment of their children, but facilitating it? Excuse me, but my statement clearly says THAT group home, not "those". Nor do I have any problems with women who prefer to go to work outside the house. My point and beef is about working women...and the seemingly pervading attitude among women who have scorn and contempt for those who CHOOSE and PREFER to remain in their kitchens and hearth! This particular boss woman, (whom I described was "butchy"...or is the term, "dyke"-like for those who shows visible masculine physical traits?), just happened to go bashing this father to a complete stranger, moi....in front of his daughter. Not only was that behaiviour totally unprofessional and insensitive, but her good judgement call seemed to have been easily clouded by how she felt towards the dad. I can't help but compare her attitude to some of the incidents I've read in the paper and the ones being complained about from that post above, about women shelters.

Sorry for not being able to debate...I asked the particular question out of real, genuine bafflement as to why McKay had gotten in the hot seat. I've been reading your arguments though. Didn't the terrorists assure that they had no plans of handing these captives to extremist cell (or am I confusing this particular kidnapping to that of another)?. That they had, for how many times now, postponed the execution date? McKay's "loose lips" may have exuded confidence....but confidence for what exactly, is another matter. It could be "confidence that this particular terrorist group will do the right thing", after all, they do seem different from the dreaded butchering ones. What I'm saying is McKay's unguarded comment can be seen as both a negative and a positive...depending on the reader's interpretation of it.

That story regarding one of my children is just ONE EXAMPLE showing that indeed, there are those who operate/manage/supervise tax-funded programs supposed TO SUPPORT people in dire need! My story not only showed that this boss (who manages a GROUP HOME) could be so incredibly insensitive to these children who are going through one of the roughest times of their lives, (supporting one of the allegations posted by COURTWATCH). My kid attempted suicide! That this insensitive boss runs a GROUP HOME makes one wonder how that group home is particularly managed and operating. Is there anything wrong in questioning about these things?

Fathers Canada 4 Justice www.fathers.ca/ Thanks for the fathers link. You've made a sweeping statement about "misinformation" being given by REAL WOMEN and Fathers' Rights Groups. What "misinformation" are you referring to being given by both groups? Please support your allegations.

Whoa, that's a heavy statement against REAL WOMEN. Regarding "Father's Rights " groups that you've mentioned giving misinformation, name the particular groups please. I expect you to support your allegation(s). Link please.

I don't know about your CWA. I am a Canadian and REAL WOMEN shares most of my views.

Well, in my personal experience, even "femisist" men have a tendancy to barge in and dominate discussions with their views. Sometimes women just get tired of men telling them how to soleve their problems, y'know. I think this post from another discussion board sums it up. Yeah: you spent the entire thread ducking weaving and generally obfuscating like crazy. Your exchange with YankAbroad (I wonder where he went? He was rad.) was the kicker. You can't even name a single "anti-male" feminist group. You want to know why this tactic of yours is infuriating? Imagine a discussion on abortion. Now imagine I went on and on about those radical pro-life groups that advocate killing abortion doctors and bombing clinics. People would probably get the impression I was talking about the whole anti-abortion movement and you'd probably respond by pointing out that such groups don't represent the pro-life movement as a whole. But suppose I ignored that and continued to harp on those factions. That's be pretty annoying, hey? (But even I can name one violent anti-abortion group). What's this hang-ups and obsession about specific names? Your entire beef is about , all the way from the NAMBLA thread, "Name a particular group!" I know there is or are violent anti-abortion group or individuals around...and I don't know the name of the group or individual(s). But just because I can't name this violent anti-abortion groups by name doesn't mean they don't exist!

And I suppose you're similarly outraged by conservative groups, ministers, and the like who counsel abused and terrified women to return to their marriages, oh, and drop some money in the collection box on the way out...(?) I read through your litany of terrors that await women in shelters and, maybe it's the lawyer in me, but it strikes as a huge pile of horse-sh*t. Anyone can find a handful of examples of bad behavior or corrupt individuals within institutional structures and report that "some" are this, that, and the other. The fact remains that 99% of shelters provide life-saving services to abused women and kids and those victims need the services and welcome the support these shelters provide. Would you rather we shut down these places (heaven forbid some of the social workers in them should be -- gasp! -- lesbians!!) and send women back to a life of intimidation, and back to verbal and physical abuse and possibly death? Who sez anything about shut downs? As a lawyer, I'm sure you're familiar with things such as "enquiry"...or investigations to allegations? Would you rather we don't talk about it? That we as tax-payers do not question where or how our money is spent? If it's really helping the people that are meant to be helped? Why, just because some popular highly protected species might be involved?

Well Black Dog, it was pretty clear who knew nada about that argument we had regarding NAMBLA. Your explosive temper tantrum and personal insults sez it all. As usual...you put words in my post. You know I am not making snap judgements on the ENTIRE feminist movement. I am pissin on the radical lesbian-feminist inspired movement that are bent on being anti-male! For obvious reasons!

There are various fractions of feminist movements...and I am not saying that all of them are duibious or with ulterior motives. But there is one that I've read in an article (approx. 4 years ago) that featured one group (I cannot remember exactly what their group is called but the article appeared on either National Post or Ottawa Citizen)...and what struck me was the kind of hostility the spokesperson for the group exhibited towards a man who wrote to them giving his support and calling on men for the end to violence on women. Why such hostility? I can't help but wonder about that! That is why, women ought to be wary of groups that claim to speak for themselves. Women ought to find out more about the groups that they support! Another article published sometime ago, similar to that which I posted above or maybe that's the same thing, featured the same complaint about womens' shelters.

No, we are not punishing all muslims! We are making a statement that intimidation, threats and violence should not succeed in suppressing a nation's freedom to practice the foundation in which this culture had been built on! If all Muslims living in this democratic country refuses to recognize the difference and insist that it is insulting to all of them...then that's just toooo bad! They'd just have to live and learn, like the rest of us from other minority groups...and adjust to these new way of life! This cries of outrage from so-called moderates who had CHOSEN to live in a democratic society...and for them to threaten (as you've claimed)...does not make them "moderates" at all!

Like not telling Western Standard that they should not print those cartoons because they are considered insulting by a group. That Western Standard and the people who wanted to see those cartoons printed are rednecks because they don't want to give another inch by gaining the approval of this group. TELL ME: WHY HAVEN'T YOU TOLD THIS GROUP, "YOU'VE GOT A CHOICE. DON'T READ THE WESTERN STANDARD!"

You have passed judgement on us! By calling us "rednecks!" Just because we do not think the way you do...that we place a great deal of value in what we have and would want to see them preserved...and not chipped off and squandered like bargaining chips by some who obviously view this situation in a very shallow and superficial way! As I've said before, fighting for and protecting a nation's freedom does NOT rest SOLELY on the backs of soldiers! Citizens of a nation have that duty and responsibility, to aid in everyway possible to protect our way of life, our culture and our nation!

Are you now saying that the all Muslims within Canada are not doing this. Because some of them are not, and have threaten violence, but have not acted on it as of yet. But then again this is not really about those living here is it. Well, this was not really about those living here....but with as you said "some have threatened violence but have not acted on it as of yet"., then maybe now, yes, it is also about those living here that had made those threats! For them to make threats just because we have practiced what is part of our culture does not constitute courtesy and respect. I interpret that as them IMPOSING their demand for us to change our ways! And you're ignoring that fact deliberately!

I had an eight yearl old girl who had been with me since she was 2. I've known both of her parents...and been there when they had another baby (whom I cared for too)...and I was there too when they ended up splitting and involved in a nasty custody fight. The children were being shifted EVERYDAY from one household to the other. One night with dad...the next night with mom. They literally live in a suitcase. One time, the youngest one (already three at the time) got confused and asked me, "I forgot. who picks us up tonight?" The two kids had always had a loving relationship with their dad. The way they cling to his neck whenever he came to pick them up. It's always been like that ever since I've known them. There's no question as far as I'm concerned that he ever was abusive towards his kids. The marital problem was between him and his wife. It had always been my policy never to become involved...or take sides on any marital disputes between my clients. The 8 year old freely talks to me about her dad. I never was judgemental nor have criticized the dad in any way. She is the sensitive type. The type who also tried to avoid hurting or slighting anyone, the type whom I noticed tried to please so much. Mom hangs around with a girlfriend and her own boss (a woman), who actually looked "butchy" (it was the first impression I had of her when I first saw her). She managed a group home, where mom works. And telling from what the mom relays to me, I could picture these three women bashing dad over coffee, not caring whether children were listening. I honestly think the mom was getting some advice from these two. My suspicion was further bolstered by the fact that the boss came to pick up the kids at my daycare (with mom's instructions). We had to go to the school bus stop to wait for the 8 year old. While waiting, this woman whom I hardly know (my second time to meet her actually) started badmouthing the dad to me. The 3 year old was beside me...and I indicated to her through signals that the child was listening. Finally, things got more serious (he stormed in home of his wife's friend while mom and the kids were there and tried to take his kids. He was furious that his children were being dragged to someone else's house at a late hour in the middle of a school week). Restraining orders were taken against the dad. Fortunately, he never put me in any awkward situations...he respected and stayed away from the daycare. One time we were having lunch (no svhool that day), the 8 year old suddenly just burst into tears for no reason. I just hugged her as she started saying "they're always saying bad things about him!" To make the long story short, my 8 year old tried to commit suicide. This happened on a summer while she was vacationing with mom's brother and his family. Mom told me about this. A few weeks before that happened I remembered her asking me several times if she can stay and sleep at my place. At the time my guest room had been turned into a "junk room" so I did not have any place to put guests. She volunteered that she can sleep on the floor. I told mom that. And also told her how her gilr was bothered by what she's been hearing from her friends. Mom married a guy from out of town and finally moved 3 hours away from us...but the girls still keep in touch. The half-sister of the two girls (dad's side of the family) had been bringing her baby to me...and she tells me about them. Everything is fine now. The dad also re-married and moved closer to his children...no more restraining order and the kids get to visit and stay with dad. From what I hear, the two couples became good friends and even go out together! If they ended up being this close...chances were things were not as bad before as it had been painted. I think mom was egged on by her boss and friend....only making the situation worse.

Well I don't think a man should hit his wife either....and I think a lot think that way too. But what these radical lesbian-feminists are doing is exploiting and using these women and children, (who are already troubled by their domestic problems), to gain their own end. What kind of people would take the opportunity to turn these unfortunate situations to their own advantage? This is not SUPPORT. THis is ABUSE! Abuse of authority or power over someone who's desperate or traumatized or troubled or all of the above! Despicable!

"CANADA COURT WATCH: WOMEN'S SHELTERS Currently in Canada, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on women's shelters across Canada. The Family Justice Review Committee does not dispute the fact there are indeed a number of women (and men) who are abused by their partners and in need of a place of temporary shelter during these times of family conflict. However, information gathered by Court Watch from a number of credible sources including information and testimony from former women residents, children who were residents and former shelter managers, clearly indicate that there is a very dark and ominous side to the women's shelter and violence against women movement. Court Watch has obtained powerful video testimony from both children and former women residents which shows that women and children are being abused, threatened, brainwashed, intimated and assaulted while inside some of these government funded women's shelters and which is going unreported. Some of the disturbing information that has been reported to Court Watch by various sources include: * That women who work in women’s shelters hate men and that one of their main goals is to get the other women who come to the shelter to hate and destroy their spouses as well. Some of the women's shelters are operated like anti-male bunkers which spread hate while putting up a facade to the community that they are helping women and children. * That some shelter workers have fraudulently taken money given to the shelter by taxpayers and through donations and spent the money for personal use. * That women who are fleeing from authorities, sometimes with children they have abducted, have used women's shelters to hide out and have never been asked as the the circumstances as to why they are at the shelter with their children. Police are barred from entering many of the shelters, even if looking for women who may have arrest warrants against them and who police suspect may be hiding in a shelter. * That some children in the shelters cry and want to see their fathers but are denied meaningful contact with the fathers even when there is no issue of abuse of the children and no ethical or moral reason for denying contact. In some cases, workers at women's shelters assist some mothers to violate court orders in relating to a father's access to his children as part of a plan to unlawfully keep children from seeing their fathers. The rights and freedoms of the children are often violated by forcefully detaining the children in the shelter against the child's wises and preferences and in many cases denying the children even phone contact with their fathers. * That workers spy on women residents and sometimes listen in on private phone calls. * That many of the shelters have no formal accounting system for keeping track of money and donations and that there are few, if any, audits on shelters. Yet, millions of tax dollars flow to these facilities. * That some of the women working in shelters are lesbians who deplore men and many of the other women hate men partly because they can’t find a man themselves or because they have been the victim of abuse themselves. * That some of the staff at shelters have made sexual advances towards the new women who come into the shelter and attempt to coerce new women into lesbian relationships at a time when these new women are vulnerable. Some women have reported being told that if they enter into sexual relationships with shelter workers they will receive preferential treatment by the shelter workers and can obtain special access to donations which come into the shelter. * That many of these women who work at shelters don’t want to see other women happy and married, so one of their main objectives appears to be to to destroy and break up families. * That many of the women who are in the the shelters, including some workers, have emotional and psychological problems themselves and in many cases are more violent than the partners they left. * That many staff members are former abused women themselves with emotional problems and have an automatic bias against men. * That children are being shown videotapes of men beating up women and then being brainwashed into believing that only fathers are the ones who are violent towards their partners and children. Yet published research clearly shows that children are safest in the care of their biological father. * That some women assault each other in the shelters but the shelters hush this up using threats to residents to keep silent, so that the police and the public will not become aware of the violence in the shelters. * That women who come into many of the women's shelter are told they must sign an intake form agreeing that they will not report about anything they witness in the shelter and to waive their legal rights to sue the shelter. It has been reported that the women are being told that they cannot even take the agreement they signed out of the women's shelter so that others might be able to see what it is they have signed. * Some shelters tell new residents they are not allowed to call police in regards to any illegal activities or incidents of abuse or violence at the shelter without the permission of the shelter. They are told that this is for "security and privacy" reasons. The real reason why this is done is to conceal illegal activities and violence in the shelter so that members of the public will not become aware. * That there is a a lot of swearing used in the facility and that young children are exposed to swearing and foul language while in the shelter. * That new women who come into the shelter are expected to never go back to their husbands and partners and are expected to destroy their marriages. Even if a woman want to attempt to make her relationship with her partner another chance, she is forced into silence often under threat that she will get kicked out of the shelter is she says anything about wanting to see her former partner. * That donations made by corporate sponsors are being squandered and in some cases, removed from the shelters for the profit of staff members. * That there is a pecking order in the shelters. Women who do what they are told by staff get extra privileges granted of them by shelter staff. Some women feel more abused in a shelter then they did when they were with their partners. * That workers at shelters routinely provide family courts judges testimonial letters saying that new residents are excellent mothers without doing any check into the past history of the mother. This is done as part of a strategy to misled the court and to help the mother destroy her children's relationship with their father. In some cases violent mothers who have seriously abused their children are willingly been accepted into a shelter and provided a most praising letter to the court. * That some women with significant financial assets have stayed at women's shelters at the expense of taxpayers without having to disclose their financial status. In some cases women have had properties they owned where they could have stayed instead of using the facilities of taxpayer funded facilities. * That some shelters are referring new women residents to certain lawyers who are lesbian and radical feminist or who are known to be unethical. Often these types of lawyers will resort to any dirty and unethical trick to help women destroy their children's relationship with their fathers. * That women's shelters have been known to harbour women who are fugitives from the law. It has been reported that some women have kidnapped children and have used women's shelters in various communities and provinces to hide themselves and their children from apprehension from the law. * That many women who felt that they or their children have been mistreated by the women's shelter feel that there is no place that they can file a complaint about their experience without fear of retribution by those who operate the shelter. Women’s shelters have been referred to as “One stop divorce shops” by journalists who have written stories about them. The Family Justice Review Committee believes that any women's shelter, especially those that receive any sort of government or community funding should maintain the highest standards of accountability and professionalism. http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/positionst...20Shelters.html