Tuesday, August 29, 2006

They're trad and they're mad!

Conservative group REAL Women continues trying to gain traction for their campaign to scrap Status of Women Canada. SWC doesn't speak for them, they say, and they resent having "their tax money" spent on something they don't believe in. This puzzles me. What is it that SWC does that they don't believe in? Is it the shelters for battered women? Pay equity? Assistance for women re-entering the work force?

Even if REALchicks are so egocentric that they don't give a shit about battered women because it's never happened to them, and don't care about pay equity because they don't work, their objections are nonetheless baffling. I'd say at least assistance for women re-entering the work force is something these girls should be interested in, since statistically there's as good a chance as not that some of them may need it someday. Those who've been sitting at home while hubby works will be screwed if the shit ever hits the matrimonial fan, which it does about 40% of the time. Agencies like Status of Women can lend a hand in such situations -- how could they resent that?

It's because helping women is not on RW's agenda. They exist to keep women from having abortions (none of their business), keep gays from getting married (also none of their business), and bring the bible into the making of public policy (unconstitutional). They're supported by the despicable Focus on the Family, who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars before the 2004 election running full page newspaper ads about "protecting marriage". (An American advocacy group active in Canadian politics? No thanks.)

I also object to some of the things my tax money is spent on, but I realize that's the nature of a democracy. I get the Status of Women, they get the war in Afghanistan. I get the right to choose, they get tax-exempt status for their churches. And so it goes. But when someone talks about "promoting legislation which upholds the judeo-christian understanding of family life", they're not talking democracy, they're talking theocracy. Knowing that, I find it a little easier to understand where they're coming from, and a lot more determined to make sure they don't succeed.

(More commentary and a good link to Heather Mallick's article about RW on creekside.)