Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Ignatieff is just as ideological as Harper | Main | Will "the peace blimp" fly? (Updated) »

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

I Guess Heather Mallick Was Out...

Zerb plays feminist warrior against the patriarchy.

Tuesday, on the Star's op-ed page, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that he would "mobilize" world leaders to save the lives of women and children around the world.

"As president of the G8 in 2010," he wrote, "Canada will champion a major initiative to improve the health of women and children in the world's poorest regions."

He cited some horrifying statistics: "Each year, it is estimated that 500,000 women lose their lives during pregnancy or childbirth. Further, an astonishing 9 million children die before their fifth birthday."

[…]

Hardly surprising considering Harper's government record on everything from women's reproductive rights to equality.

And so he plans to help women only as baby-makers while ignoring all the other Millennium Goals to end Poverty by 2015 on the international agenda, including "environmental sustainability."

That's right. Bare foot and pregnant. It's the way all us right-wingers think. We're afraid of strong women. It's why so many of us admire Margaret Thatcher, who would have been, had she not been a conservative, revered as a feminist icon. Because the Prime Minister has not signed up for Zerb's leftist agenda, he is therefore a maple syrup sucking Archie Bunker. But stereotypes must be maintained, and the knuckle dragging conservative - which is mostly a hand-me-down smear from the American Left - must be pinned on even the most innocuous of figures. The blander than bland, the more moderate than moderate Stephen Harper.

The PM is trying to play statesman at the G20 and G7 Summits this year. In the past statesmanship consisted of securing peace between Great Powers, negotiating trade deals and building alliances. The stuff of Castlereigh, Metternich and Talleyrand. Now it consists of playing Good Samaritan, with the difference that it's other people's money you're giving away. Thus the touchy feely approach of Harper writing (or at least signing) an Op-Ed for the Red Star. The drive-by smearing of the PM is par for the course then. Stephen Harper is the straw man conservative. Whatever he does and says is used to vilify anyone to the Right of Bob Rae in modern Canada. That's the superficial take away. The deeper message is that helping women in the Third World means more government. 

But Harper didn't mention anything about women getting educations or achieving economic parity.

As internationally known human rights activist Stephen Lewis told me Wednesday night, "None of the spectrum of women's rights and issues is encompassed in this announcement.

It doesn't include sexual violence, child marriage, sexual trafficking, female genital mutilation, economic autonomy, political representation, land rights or inheritance rights.

After nearly half a century of a financial aid, guilt money really, from the leading developed powers to assorted ex-colonial backwaters, there has been little advance in these issues. It should surprise no one. The means will prevent the ends from ever being obtained. Government doesn't help, it hurts. The most powerful tool to help women in impoverished nations, and indeed everyone in such places, is freedom and the rule of law. Capitalism is the answer, yet it is exactly capitalism that Zerb and other feminists, whose economics begins and ends with whatever watered down marxism is currently en vogue, oppose bitterly. 

The greatest advance in the well-being of women was the invention of the Watt steam engine. Once the vast majority of wealth in a society was generated by brains, rather than brawn, the position of women dramatically improved. The women's rights movements of the last hundred years would have been inconceivable without an industrial economy, one that could generate enough wealth to educate women in great numbers, as well as support a class of professional activists. 

Supporting a capitalist economy is a rule of law society, which typically begins with a respect for property rights. Its ethos then flows to other areas of law and society. Problems like sexual trafficking exist on a socially problematic scale because such countries are poor, and relatives connive at turning young women into commodities. The same situation existed in Victorian Britain, until rising wages for female workers, giving them greater independence, in other industries reduced prostitution to a general nuisance. Zerb concludes with a typical flourish:

Concludes Lewis: "I think it's pretty cynical but, now that they're doing it, maybe they'll be forced into making some financial commitment."

Women are watching, and waiting.

Some women, anyway. For decades American black conservatives have been derided as Uncle Toms. One can only imagine the sort of hate mail Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams get. Feminism does much the same to conservative or libertarian women. Either you sign up for the statist agenda, or you get branded a traitor to your sex. Wander out of the feminist ghetto at your peril ladies.

Posted by Richard Anderson on February 3, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

The feminist industry has no credibility considering their total silence and lack of opposition to the treatment of women under Islam and in particular under Sharia. This clearly demonstrates that they are not about equality of the sexes but follow a very different agenda.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-03 11:19:05 AM


Equality of the sexes does not exist and never will. One sex will dominate at different times and in different circumstances. Any law passed to try to equalise the sexes should be one sentence with no more than ten words.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-02-03 7:30:13 PM


I did not realize that every announcement has to include every single possible topic of discussion.

Wow. The depths the media go to. It's not really surprising any longer.

Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2010-02-04 8:54:20 AM


There is only one position on abortion in Canada. That position is pro-abortion. The only thing that we haven't done is establish a national abortion day. We need look no farther than the Liberal leader's rant about promoting abortion as a foreign policy objective. The Liberals, Bloc, and the NDP are pro-abortion parties who want no restrictions on abortion. Meanwhile, the right represented by the Conservative Party(and Libertarian Party) is silent. Many conservatives and libertarian-leaning Canadians are too afraid to challenge the left on this issue. Some libertarians seem to think that libertarianism means that you can't oppose abortion(don't want to be divisive). Wrong, in the United States, there is even an organization for pro-life libertarians(they believe that unborn children are the most vulnerable members of our society and need our protection)! Canada has no restrictions on abortion which puts it in the extreme abortion camp. Communist Cuba is the only other country in the western hemisphere that places no restrictions on abortion. In ten years, this will probably no longer be true because the Castro regime will most likely have collapsed at that point. Canada will then stand alone at the extreme position. A recent Angus Reid poll shows that Canadians want abortion severely restricted after the 13th week by a greater than 2 to 1 margin. It also showed Canadians split on abortion funding in those circumstances and wanting health professionals to discuss alternatives to abortion before carrying out a procedure.This is a battle that the right should engage on. At heart, Canadians are not the extreme pro-abortion crew that the CBC portrays us as. We are moderates on the issue and should adjust our abortion policy to reflect the Canadian public's mainstream views!

Posted by: Jason | 2010-02-04 7:16:56 PM


We are moderates on the issue and should adjust our abortion policy to reflect the Canadian public's mainstream views!

Posted by: Jason | 2010-02-04 7:16:56 PM

Politicians see the whole abortion issue as toxic. It's a can of worms they will not touch.

Posted by: peterj | 2010-02-05 10:08:22 PM


Harper IS a feminist -- a conservative, statist feminist.

He suffers badly from a case of White Man's Burden.

His efforts in Haiti and soon, in the Third World, are designed principally to earn him kudos on the International Stage where he hopes to secure employment one day with a Global Interventionist Bureaucracy of some sort.

Harper also hopes to keep Haitian and African immigrant the hell out of Canada whilst securing political points among the social democratic masses.

The ugliest thing is, this kind of aid will only make matters worse, as people like Dambisa Moyo so easily explain.

Harper long railed against the destructive nature of welfare and socialist state intervention into the lives of communities and individuals. The evidence of damage is rampant in Canada where Inuit and First Nations infant mortality rates, to pick but ONE example of health care crisis, are increasing.

Yet he is only too happy to waste taxpayer dollars for HIS OWN personal benefit.

Harper is easily one of the worst sonsofbitches to occupy the PMO. He really, really must go.

Posted by: JC | 2010-02-07 3:56:32 PM


Jason, let me say Hear! Hear!

So JC you prefer Layton or Iggy to run the country? That PM Harper is a disappointment in some areas I argue not, but to claim he is the worst PMO is nonsense.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-07 6:57:22 PM


Harper is easily one of the worst sonsofbitches to occupy the PMO. He really, really must go.

Posted by: JC | 2010-02-07 3:56:32 PM


We will not see the true Harper for better or for worse until or if he gets a majority.
At least he's not giving in to the foam at the mouth, granola crunching tree huggers and the completely discredited global warming nuts.

Posted by: peterj | 2010-02-08 7:10:17 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.