Women Now Support Conservatives

[TimG]

"Obsession", really?

Why do you believe that a woman must support the 'professional grievance industry' simply because she is a woman?

[cybercoma]

Why do you call it a "professional grievance industry"?

[kimmy]

Gee, looking at that list it sure sounds terrible.

How could they defund the "New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity", for example? Clearly they don't want women to earn fair wages, right?

Well, maybe they looked at these groups, evaluated the type and quality of services they were offering, and concluded the money could be better spent elsewhere or that the service could be provided better in some other way.

Having spent a couple of minutes looking over the "New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity" website, I'm kind of glad they have been defunded.

-k

[August1991]

I guess that explains what is wrong with the 'intolerant Right'. They are unwilling to accept that a clear cut majority of intelligent people DO disagree with their outdated ideology.

I may be wrong, Rick. But I think you are wrong to say that I adhere to "outdated ideology".

The problem seems to be that none of the ideologies out there are exactly catching on either. Maybe the reason that we've been having minority governments, and seem doomed to continue having them, is that the electorate is basically saying "A pox on all your houses."

Uh, no. We are having minority governments because francophone Quebecers are voting for the Bloc, an in-house party.

BTW, this National Question problem/stalemate exists not only in the federal parliament - it is spread throughout Quebec society. This situation is unsustainable in Quebec and will likely soon change.

-----

To return to the thread title.

Here's a list of women's groups that have had their funding cut by the Conservatives:

...

Again, I can't understand why any woman or, August's right, man would support the Conservatives.

Cybercoma, I could give you a different long list of Quebec organizations that have seen their funding cut. Should I be upset?

Your error is to believe that if the government cuts funding for a particular woman's group, all women should be offended.

Let's be more direct. If I were a Leftist, and I saw the list of Leftist groups losing government funding, would I be upset? Probably. But here's the rub, cybercoma. If any group relies on goverment funding, they should be prepared for a change of government and maybe loss of their income.

That's how democracy works. No?

Edited April 24, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Having spent a couple of minutes looking over the "New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity" website, I'm kind of glad they have been defunded.

Until you realize that New Brunswick is one of the only provinces that doesn't actually have pay equity legislation for women in the private sector. Perhaps having a group that advocates is important.

[TimG]

Until you realize that New Brunswick is one of the only provinces that doesn't actually have pay equity legislation for women in the private sector. Perhaps having a group that advocates is important.

Not if you believe that pay equity is scam. Equal pay for equal work - yes. Having some bureaucrat come up with self serving rules that define jobs that are 'equivalent' - a scam. Edited April 24, 2011 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

Something about pot/kettle here...

So by your Conservative math/logic... Harper must have had a majority then lol.

Perhaps that explains the sheer arrogance/ignorance they had towards such things like democracy, the way parliament works and our constitution.

When you have 5 choices, it's just about impossible to get agreement from 50% of the public - but we all get a chance to choose. Having 40% of the popular vote - constantly 12-15% ahead of the next party is quite an accomplishment. Leading in every region except Quebec. Leading amongst both the Male and Female voters. I think that's a pretty strong mandate to push a platform through with little comprimise. Voters make their choice....that's democracy.

[bloodyminded]

When you have 5 choices, it's just about impossible to get agreement from 50% of the public - but we all get a chance to choose. Having 40% of the popular vote - constantly 12-15% ahead of the next party is quite an accomplishment. Leading in every region except Quebec. Leading amongst both the Male and Female voters. I think that's a pretty strong mandate to push a platform through with little comprimise. Voters make their choice....that's democracy.

But those interested in democratic principles understand that such a mandate is limited, and compromise necessary; because the fact that the majority didn't vote Conservative is considered important, and it is.

Just as you said: voters make their choice.

Edited April 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Mr.Canada]

Equal work for equal pay isn't at all accurate because of the way they calculate it. What the ydo is add up all the professions and generate an average. That's where the inaccuracies come from. One must look at the individual jobs and see if women are being paid less then men in the exact same position in the exact same company.

In a national bank is a woman teller being paid less then a male teller?

At McDonalds is a new male employee being paid more then a new female employee?

Is a female ER Dr. being paid less then a male ER Dr?

Is a female radio host being paid less then a male radio host?

Females also often need to take maternity leave to have children and often have to work less hours due to the children again. Picking them up from daycare or after school, taking them to soccer practice etc. Females often cannot work as long as a man could because of these family obligations. This is often the reason for a woman to be paid less, they simply often times don't put in as many hours as their male counter parts.

Their are plenty of women CEO's who I am sure aren't making less t hen their male counterparts and are probably making much more and deservedly so. So in order to get an accurate snapshot one must look at them much more critically because their is much more going on then meets the eye.

[cybercoma]

The problem is that there is an effect of "normative social control" on job positions. There are very few men working as receptionists and very few women working as mechanical engineers. Social expectations create limitations, whether by personal choice, employer prejudice, or pressure from family/friends. Yes there are many exceptions but there certainly isn't equality. The point being that it sounds great to compare position for position, but the genders are not equally represented in which positions they take.

[Keepitsimple]

But those interested in democratic principles understand that such a mandate is limited, and compromise necessary; because the fact that the majority didn't vote Conservative is considered important, and it is.

Just as you said: voters make their choice.

But that's exactly where it gets very subjective. The closer the second place party is to the first, the more comprimise Canadians should expect - the further behind, the less. In the last Parliament, the Conservatives had twice as many seats as the Liberals so the mandate from Canadians was quite clear. You can't simply add up all the "opposition" seats and expect that the comprimise should be in that proportion....because Canadians voted for very different things when they chose the Bloc, the Greens, the NDP and the Liberals and separately - each of their platforms was overwhelmingly rejected by Canadians. To get more comprimise, a party like the Liberals (or NDP) simply have to win more seats. Unforetunately, the Liberals have not been able to accept being an opposition party - so their approach was based on making the government look as bad as possible and trying to instigate the conditions that would get them back into power. Surely, most people can now see that has been the case.

[bloodyminded]

But that's exactly where it gets very subjective. The closer the second place party is to the first, the more comprimise Canadians should expect - the further behind, the less. In the last Parliament, the Conservatives had twice as many seats as the Liberals so the mandate from Canadians was quite clear. You can't simply add up all the "opposition" seats and expect that the comprimise should be in that proportion....because Canadians voted for very different things when they chose the Bloc, the Greens, the NDP and the Liberals and separately - each of their platforms was overwhelmingly rejected by Canadians. To get more comprimise, a party like the Liberals (or NDP) simply have to win more seats.

I understand this, but it's selective in it's perception. Yes, the minority government has more of a mandate than the other parties. That's why they're the government. But no, it's not true that "the mandate from Canadians was quite clear." 40%, or less, by no stretch of the imagination offers a "mandate" beyond the obvious: that they are the governemnt...and subject to the will of Parliament, most of whom are not Conservatives. You may wish it were otherwise; you're arguing what you think it should be (and never will be in a Parliamentary system).

[cybercoma]

5,000,000 people or so voted for the Conservatives. The entire population of Canada is roughly 30,000,000. One can say say that less than 17% of the country picked the governing party.

Sure you can't consider those that don't vote or spoil their ballots and not everyone in the census can vote, but in absolute terms this is the truth. Even if 100% of the ballots cast were for the Conservatives and they had an impossible 308 seats, only 58.8% of voters would have picked them.

All of this depends on how you spin it.

I completely agree that it's remarkable that the Conservatives get as much support as they do with 3 parties to choose from, but then again if you arbitrarily pulled parties out of a hat it would normalize at 33%. That 37.5% doesn't look quite so remarkable now.

Here's where things get really screwy. Look at popular vote % versus seats in the House %.

CPC pop. 37.65% to 46.4% seats (+8.75%)

The CPC is clearly over-represented largely due to strong regional support in Alberta, likewise with the BQ.

What's interesting, however, is that the NDP are also over-represented in the house by 5%, while the Liberals are nearly even. What this suggests is that the NDP needs to increase it's support on election day by more than 5% to make a considerable difference in seats. This perhaps might be interesting to discuss. A 5% increase for the NDP may simply eat into their over-representation figure without translating at all.

But I digress. The fact of the matter is that there are 30,000,000 people in this country and only 5,000,000 of those people actually voted for the leading party. It doesn't matter which party it is, that doesn't exactly shout democracy. That's not to say the other parties should be in their place. After all, they got less votes than that still. It is an indictment of our FPTP system though. We need to sit down and seriously consider electoral reforms.

[TimG]

The point being that it sounds great to compare position for position, but the genders are not equally represented in which positions they take.

It is not the employers fault. They pay the going rate. If women are willing to accept lower wages so they can get into one of these jobs then the fault lies with the women. Men get more because they are more willing to change employment.

[TimG]

5,000,000 people or so voted for the Conservatives. The entire population of Canada is roughly 30,000,000. One can say say that less than 17% of the country picked the governing party.

People who don't vote don't count. If they choose not to participate they are saying they will support whatever the outcome might be so you can count the no-voters as supporting the government.

[August1991]

I was wrong, and my conclusion short lived:

The results indicate the New Democrats have doubled their support since the campaign began late last month — thanks mainly to huge gains among Quebecers and women voters.

CP

Harper may do well among white Albertan males but he should have sought more votes among Ontario women and rural Quebecers. [irony]Harper did well.

Edited April 29, 2011 by August1991

[Bonam]

Exactly. Without them, the old boys clubs don't even bother to ask the questions, much less find answers.

Really? "Old boys clubs"? Let the specters of these banished "evils" lie in their graves where they belong. More women are finishing university than men. More women are graduating with advanced degrees with men. More women are working in many professions than man, with just a few hold outs like engineering. The rate of unemployment is lower for women than men. If you're still railing against gender inequality you are far behind the times. Your fellow women have risen up and achieved it already. All you have to do is look around and take the opportunities available to you, which are in no way less than those available to men.

[Molly]

Really? "Old boys clubs"? Let the specters of these banished "evils" lie in their graves where they belong. More women are finishing university than men. More women are graduating with advanced degrees with men. More women are working in many professions than man, with just a few hold outs like engineering. The rate of unemployment is lower for women than men. If you're still railing against gender inequality you are far behind the times. Your fellow women have risen up and achieved it already. All you have to do is look around and take the opportunities available to you, which are in no way less than those available to men.

No, employment equity issues are not really what I was referring to, but....

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/gender-income-gap.aspx#context

I will however agree that the employment equity lion has been slain on the day that the local grocery stores quit automatically offering a higher starting wage to those applicants who have dangly bits.

[Harry]

The polls are showing it is actually smiling Jack Layton that is winning the votes of Canadian women.

After the abortion issue flared up Canadian women fled the Conservatives in droves.

[Mr.Canada]

The polls are showing it is actually smiling Jack Layton that is winning the votes of Canadian women.

After the abortion issue flared up Canadian women fled the Conservatives in droves.

The abortion issue flared up? When and where exactly? Why didn't the news carry it?

[August1991]

The polls are showing it is actually smiling Jack Layton that is winning the votes of Canadian women.

After the abortion issue flared up Canadian women fled the Conservatives in droves.

I saw that too MapleSyrup but I don't think that it's due to the abortion issue.

---

I have always felt that to form a majority, the Tories should seek votes among women or French Quebecers. So, I was surprised to see polls showing very recently that the Conservatives were leading among women voters. Kimmy above suggested that the shift of women was due to Ignatieff. I suggested that women were second-adopters.

In any event, it appears to have been short-lived. Women now choose Conservatives in second place.

----

In any case, Harper's strategy seems to be to focus on certain ridings and specific groups. He aims to get a majority by targetting his support, and benefitting from vote splits.

Harper has managed to lead three federal elections, coming first in two, and winning more seats every time. He has also managed a managed a minority government for five years faced with a Toronto-based English MSM that wants nothing to do with a federal government connected to Alberta.

Apparently, Harper also managed to shake the Liberal tree and get the apples to fall. Unfortunately, too many fell the wrong way.

IOW, Harper and his advisors know alot more about this than I do.

[kimmy]

MapleSyrup

do you really think?

-k