Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« A tale of two races | Main | I'm back »

Monday, December 04, 2006

SOW wants to be back at the trough

I swear, the cast of Monty Python doing the Biggus Dickus routine couldn't have come up with a better fake name sketch.

Joanne Hussey says Prime Minister Stephen Harper owes her 29 cents - the amount of money, for every dollar, that Canadian women earn less than men.

It's the message behind a campaign she and four other Halifax women have started, setting up a website and distributing pins and postcards to argue funding cuts to Status of Women Canada will only maintain that disparity.

Hussey. Speaking on behalf of Status of Women. Cue laugh track.

Ladies, we don't need this government funded garbage! A healthy dose of gumption goes far further than a penis anyday. Trust me - I know. I am making more than most non-certified males my own age (i.e. not lawyers, not doctors etc, but those with the same level of education). There's no patriarchy that's going to tell me that I don't have a brain or a backbone, and can't do the job as well as a male. However, sheer common sense tells me I am unfit to carry a 300lb man out of a burning building, so I will not bother fighting for the moot right to do so. Because if I do, it comes back to Monty Python, and the right for men to have babies. And frankly, the MP cast should not be looked to as a solution to global inequality.

In truth, the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the slaughter of the SOW is really nothing more than bureaucrats screaming over losing their jobs. And since SOW employed mostly women, it is women who will be out of the workforce in this particular instance. But they shouldn't worry - there are always jobs for those who have a good work ethic and plenty of common sense.

It's Audra Williams I worry about...

"Anytime you can steer conversation towards an important issue and follow that up with what you can do, that's super valuable."

Super! It's super valuable! I worry that a woman who uses as her dialogue coach the cast of Bring It On may not have a chance. *sigh* It truly is a man's world.

Posted by RightGirl on December 4, 2006 in Canadian Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SOW wants to be back at the trough:


Hey Right Girl

I haven't read too much of the Shotgun recently, but I recall a couple months ago that you were singled out by somebody at the National Post as a dangerous western redneck fanatic, whose views are not acceptable to the mainstream, and who can luckily, be discounted by people of clear vision and proper thinking.

what say you?

Posted by: DCM | 2006-12-04 10:42:40 AM

I say it's up to the reader. Does what I say make sense to you? I can't do your thinking for you... I just present the facts (i.e. SOW is a waste of money, Muslims are inherently dangerous etc). What you choose to do with that information, or Adam Radwanski's informatuion from the National Post, is up to you.


Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-12-04 10:49:27 AM

Yet another move made by the Harper cons to right a wrong despite the fact the spinmeisters will make them pay at the polls.I'm impressed.

These groups do not reflect the real concerns of the average Canadian woman anyways.They have been unrelenting in denigrating the single most important responsibility humankind has...motherhood.

If they truly want to help women,why don't they open some daycare centres for poor single-mothers?(Ha,I'd probably be assaulted if I dared suggest to their faces they lower themselves to tending to children)

Hold fast against the spin RG.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-12-04 10:54:06 AM

Please keep the pressure on the feminists.

Don't we need a higher birthrate while millions of babies have been killed in their mother's wombs?

Concerning muslims of all kinds, I suggest this link:


Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-12-04 12:50:04 PM

Actually, the "super valuable" quote comes from Audra Williams, not Joanne Hussey. Not that there's much to choose from between the two.

Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2006-12-04 1:16:06 PM

Thanks RR. An oversight. I will amend the post.


Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-12-04 1:18:51 PM

You're super welcome.

Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2006-12-04 1:22:15 PM


Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-12-04 1:27:40 PM

Doing a bit of Googling, it seems that the esteemed Ms. Hussy may be trying to keep her silk purse full with SOW money. Some extracts:

Joanne Hussey, Coordinator
Healthy Balance Research Program
C/O Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women

Women Council's Justice Issues Committee, along with project manager Joanne Hussey ....

Atlantic Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health: Joanne Hussey, Coordinator of “Healthy Balance Research Program”

Perhaps Ms. Hussey would find life more profitable, and would raise the ratio that she complains about, if she got non-taxpayer supported jobs ... and full-time ones, in the past, present and future?

Or does she expect to work part-time and be paid full-time dollars?

Posted by: Lost in Retirement | 2006-12-04 2:18:21 PM

And speaking of Audra Williams, look at this little outburst she left on rabble.ca:


Not sure if that's the same Audra Willams or not, but really, how many Audra's could there possibly be out there?

Seems like she's pretty upset with her NDP brethren for attacking Dion and the Liberals.

Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2006-12-04 2:31:31 PM

I especially like this choice bit of wisdom:

"It made me furious. Like, fuck OFF, party politics, okay? Seriously. Seriously."

Wow, I mean, that's like, totally awsome! Seriously, that's, like a totally super valuable contribution to political dialogue. You go girl!

Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2006-12-04 2:35:07 PM

Yeah, it would be terrible to help a group besides straight men! That fact is, women still need a hand.

Posted by: Centerist | 2006-12-04 3:22:40 PM

Centerist, please provide reasons to back up that statement. We are all born with the same opportunities in Canada - why do we need our own special bureaucracy? Do you feel that women are inferior and cannot think or act on their own behalf, like it's some kind of disability to have a uterus?

Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-12-04 3:42:00 PM

Holy crap. I checked out that link, Raging Ranter, and there are all kinds of people stamping their tiny feet in rage there!

As far as I can see, the Libs electing Dion is just more of the same. They had a chance to bring on someone like Ignatieff, who is in my opinion a breath of fresh air in a stale room, but they went and elected another guy who says 'dis for 'this' 'dat for 'that'. There is an inexhaustible supply of them.

May they all achieve the destiny they so richly deserve.

Someday, perhaps, if a miracle happens, we will have electoral reform in this country, so that the West can have proper representation in Parliament.

Posted by: DCM | 2006-12-04 4:43:15 PM

Yes, Status of Women Canada, the fact that many women choose to have children and want to stay home with them has nothing to do with their stats about 71 cents to every dollar. My friends have just started having children and most are staying home, want to stay and don't want to go back to the workforce until the last of their as of yet unborn children is in kindergarden. I want the same thing when I become a mother. So, exactly how my paying Ms. Hussey to keep her job going to affect any of the above???

Anyways, I went to Ms. "super" Audra's livejournal and found this super awesome post:

"Hi LJ! I had this fantastic breakthrough on Tuesday. I did all that writing, which really unblocked me or something. Or maybe it was talking to the police officer finally that did it? Anyway, all of a sudden I became like a giant (for me) productivity (for me) machine. I cleaned my living room, which had been really messy and driving me crazy. I did this on the advice of [info]jwithington, actually. It was not of the "YOU ARE SO MESSY CLEAN YOUR HOUSE" variety, just for clarity. We just have similar struggles and he knew it would make me feel better. So I did that. And in cleaning I of course found super important paperwork that I had been stressedly ignoring for a long time, and totally nipped some giant problems in the bud. OH GOD what a relief. And I'm doing good work for a good client right now, and I bought some things for the house I've been needing.

I guess I'm feeling like I'm getting back to living in my body. And I had some super open, fun, and awesome sex last night, too. Which, you know, is also a good sign about the relationship between my brain heart and body. So, yippee to that. And much love to Jesse. Seriously."

Super important paperwork is just, like, super! SOW canada is just super, as they get paid to generate super important paperwork too!

Posted by: elizabeth | 2006-12-04 5:53:03 PM


Why don't you SOWS shut up?
You're just

S crewing
O ther
W omen,
(ones who want husbands, kids, and want to stay home with them)
like you always have.

Why should you get a red cent from Canadian taxpayers?

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-12-04 6:01:12 PM

I think the guys should start a group demanding equality with women. Like having fewer of them dying on the job like women, having to work fewer hours per work on the job, getting equal custody of children, having equal number of prison inmates as women, having privatized health clubs, etc. where women are not allowed, equal costs for car insurance,

etc. etc etc. etc. etc. X 1000 other examples where women have an advantage over males and society shrugs its shoulders.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-04 7:26:42 PM

h2o273kk9, you've definitely got a point.

The problem with "equality," SOW-style, is that it isn't equality at all. In no way did they have in mind that women should be able to do anything a man could do; their agenda from the beginning has been to socially engineer a brave-new society where women excel, where women are supreme.

Supremacy for women has always been SOW's goal.

Up to now, they've done a number on the Canadian public, and using their many friends and supporters in the MSM, have managed to convince a goodly number of Canadians that they only want equality for downtrodden women--all the while fleecing the Canadian taxpayer to the tune of million$ and million$ of our hard-earned dollars.

They haven't helped downtrodden women, BTW. They've helped THEMSELVES.

These government grants are all about keeping themselves--women like Audra Williams and cronies (or should I say, crones)--in cash for life: offices, paid support staff, phones, computers, printers, conference expenses, travel allowances, etc. Anyone who dares to challenge them is simply tarred and feathered with the "you're not for equality for women" or "you're against women" mantra.

PM Stephen Harper and the CPC have done absolutely the right thing, and I encourage them to stick to their guns--oops, politically incorrect expression.

Too bad!!

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-12-04 7:52:21 PM

I remember the idea was being floated that stay at home moms and wives were to be paid.

Where was the money to come from? Why the working spouse of course.

My response: This was just a way for the socialists to find another revenue source as this income surely must be taxed taking even more money from the family unit.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-04 8:24:49 PM

You're right, h2o273kk9, the fembos were floating the balloon of paying stay-at-home moms which, of course, would mean that the government would then have a say in how we stay-at-home moms ran our households.

I was a stay-at-home mom at the time, and dead-set against it. My husband, in a "helping" profession (with three university degrees!), made a very modest salary and it was a constant struggle to live on one income. We felt it was essential, however, that our children have a stable home life, with someone around to get them off to school, to be at home when they came home from school, and to just "keep the homefires burning."

SOW worked actively and visciously against stay-at-home moms, unless they happened to be single moms or single-lesbian moms. The tax system worked actively against families living on one income with a parent home to care for the kids.

It's only since the CPC was elected, that a Canadian government, since PET, has recognized the value of a parent home to care for their child(ren). What my family couldn't have done with $2400/year for our two girls. Anyone who says $100/month/child under six is "peanuts" must be living very comfortably--hey, like all l/Liberals!!

There's no way I wanted "the State" having anything to do with the upbringing of my children!

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-12-05 7:50:19 AM

batb and h20:

We have always done it on one salary as well (mine). We have 7 children and the additional costs of home-schooling all our children from Grades 1-12. I do all right compared to some, but you can imagine that we have had to say no to some things over the years as well. Income tax splitting is the way to go.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-12-05 7:46:48 PM

Oh those poor little feminists, what will they do without big daddy government?

A suggestion would be that they explain their relevance to Canadian women, if even a small percentage of Canadian women think these bureaucrats are necessary, then their problem is solved because those women will fork over their own cash to these bureaucrats.

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-12-05 8:58:57 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.