Washington DV Press

Pay particular attention to the comments here.

Barbara Kay: Liberal Pink Book ignores 2009 to wallow in old battles

With much fanfare, the Liberal Women’s Caucus – 39 female Liberal MPs and senators – has released their 40-page Pink Book, Volume III.

Clearly a great deal of midnight oil was consumed by the Pink Book writers in agonizing lucubrations about what Canadian women really, really want from their government. Keen political social observers nearly fell over in shock at the caucus’ revolutionary recommendation that Canadian women deserve a “compassionate Canada” where women can achieve “economic and social equality.” Throwing caution to the winds, and with supreme leaderly instincts to the fore, Michael Ignatieff reacted swiftly to the report, unequivocally endorsing the heady challenge. Having decided to – as the spin doctors say – get out ahead of the issue, Mr. Ignatieff delivered a thundering rebuke to the received notion that Conservative Party supporters want a weak, insecure future for all Canadian women, by bravely announcing that the Pink Book is “a clear statement of principle that we want a Canada that provides a strong, secure future for all Canadians.” Take that, Stephen Harper and your anti-female minions.

Um, the above is sarcasm, in case you were actually in doubt. The recommendations aren’t revolutionary or surprising or in any way unexpected. They’re the same old demands we got in 2006, the first edition, and 2007: more help for caregiving of children and the aged, tasks that fall disproportionately to women, and a national daycare program. New ideas include: micro-credit loans of small amounts of money to female entrepreneurs; the re-establishment of a national literacy secretariat; a toll-free national line for women suffering abuse; a seniors commissioner to advise the PM on oldies’ issues; and a gender equity commissioner.

Starting with the new recommendations: Why do women wishing to start enterprises deserve government-backed credit  — i.e. free money Ottawa can’t expect to be repaid when the enterprise flops — more than men?  Women are as well educated as men in this country — better, if you consider the increasing dominance of female students in Canadian universities –  and since women make something like 70% of household purchases, are far better placed to tap into networks and targeted markets than men. Let them get their loans the usual way; if their idea is good, they’ll get the loan. If it sucks, why fund hobbies?As for the toll-free line for abuse, that’s a swell idea; how about we make it gender-free? Memo to Women’s Caucus: Men suffer abuse from women, nearly as much as the other way around (don’t believe me, check out Statistics Canada), and there are virtually no resources in this country for even severely abused men – no shelters, free counselling, virtually nothing. So why should a national toll-free line serve only one gender?

Literacy? This is a women’s issue? How so? Likewise, how is a seniors’  commissioner a women’s issue? What, men don’t get old and have problems too? Have you seen the stats on homelessness, hardcore addicts and suicides? Disproportionately male. Where’s their commissioner?

As for a gender commissioner, if the Women’s Caucus really wants to go there, they might start by recommending the abolition of equity programs in university. Enrolment in most programs, except for the hard sciences and maths, is so female-skewed, an outsider might think men have fallen victim to some mysterious plague. And given the dropout rates of boys, one might call it a plague, because gender-wise the education system is sick. Boys are disadvantaged K-12, with teaching methods geared for girls, almost no male role models as teachers, and a very poor understanding of how boys learn best. Just this week Toronto proposed sweeping changes to education, including an all-boys academy, to make up for years of apathy towards the eroding peformance gap.

Maybe this putative gender commissioner could ask why Ontario health units only screen for abuse in incoming female patients 12 and older, not male patients, a policy deemed a “best practice” by the Registered Nurses of Ontario, even though male adolescents suffer nearly as much sexual abuse as girls.

And how about a thorough investigation of the family court system, where almost 90% of contested custody cases end up with sole custody going to mothers? How about support for equal parenting, a long- overdue gender-fair initiative that can’t get traction because groups like the Liberal Women’s Caucus aren’t interested in gender fairness, they only have eyes for the areas in which women seem disadvantaged.

Because when the Women’s Caucus says “gender” they mean “women’s interests.” If an honest gender commissioner were ever appointed, he – whoops, clearly I mean she, ha ha, what was I thinking – would recommend the complete dismantlement of all women’s government-funded lobby groups. Stephen Harper was right on the money when he called the Court Challenges Program a “left-wing fringe group,” because it only spoke out for approved left-wing groups, such as…women!

There isn’t a single body of women in Canada that receives federal or provincial funding that is not ideology-driven, and that includes the Liberal Women’s Caucus. The Pink Book III is rife with debunked statistics – for example, that old chestnut about women earning 70% of what men make; come on, we know that figure mainly reflects self- selection out of areas of higher personal demand so that women can spend more time with their children, a choice they happily make. As for caregiving: Yes, women do more caregiving of those they love and in whose wellbeing they are highly invested. That’s to say there is personal reward in the sacrifice. And men do more fighting and dying in Afghanistan and saving people in burning buildings and slogging through crap in sewers for people they don’t even know, but somehow we don’t hear so much about those crummy jobs whose only reward is honor fulfilled and pride in supporting one’s family.

It’s almost as if men and women are, you know, different, each with their own strengths and weaknesses and advantages and disadvantages.

Wow, now that is a shocking idea. Of course, to admit it would be a truly revolutionary act, and somehow I don’t think we can expect Michael Ignatieff to be supporting those home truths any time soon.

Here’s another revolutionary suggestion for the Women’s Caucus.

Ladies, the war is over. Women won. Declare victory, disband and start looking at Canada as a nation of equal citizens, not oppressors and victims.